WILLIAM VICTOR, Plaintiff v. JOHN WETZEL, et al., Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-425 United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania Filed July 02, 2021 Mannion, Malachy E., United States District Judge ORDER *1 Presently before the court is the plaintiff William Victor's appeal of Magistrate Judge Carlson's order that granted in part and denied in part Victor's motion to compel and stayed discovery. (Doc. 84). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a district court will not upset a pre-trial ruling on a non-dispositive order by a magistrate judge unless the ruling “is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); M.D.Pa.L.R. 72.2. It is well established that “matters of docket control and conduct of discovery are committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). Thus, decisions regarding the timing of discovery will be disturbed only upon an abuse of discretion. Id. The order that is the subject of Victor's present appeal, (Doc. 81), pertained to a motion to compel, (Doc. 73), filed by Victor. Judge Carlson first determined that, because many of the documents sought by Victor were in the possession of the Pennsylvania State Police and pertained to a parallel criminal investigation, a stay of discovery was appropriate pending the completion of those related and overlapping proceedings. With respect to the documents already produced, because the Federal Rules require only that discovery be produced in a “reasonably usable form,” Judge Carlson declined to grant Victor's request for copies of certain documents to be provided to him in a one-sided and/or color format. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(1)(E)(ii). Additionally, as to Victor's request for copies of various grievances he may have filed, including those unrelated to the present matter, Judge Carlson granted Victor's motion only with respect to the grievance paperwork relating to the matters alleged in his Complaint. Finally, Judge Carlson denied Victor's request for a hearing regarding spoliation sanctions because there was no foreseeable need for the defendants to preserve the video evidence Victor sought. This is because the recorded incidents took place prior to the episode alleged in his Complaint and the recordings were of apparently unremarkable interactions between Victor and prison staff. Here, the court finds no error in Judge Carlson's order. Judge Carlson thoroughly considered Victor's motion, the applicable law, and came the well-reasoned decision set forth above. Victor's appeal has raised no authority to suggest that Judge Carlson's order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. For example, Victor baldly asserts, without citation to legal authority, that Defendants are required to maintain video footage for a period of seven years. Victor also reiterates his request that the court hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of spoliation; however, as Judge Carlson aptly observed, a hearing is inappropriate since Victor has not shown the requisite four factors necessary when alleging a spoliation claim. See Ogin v. Ahmed, 563 F.Supp.2d 539, 543 (M.D.Pa. 2008). Accordingly, the court will DENY Victor's appeal, (Doc. 84), of Judge Carlson's order.