CHRISTOPHER L. JONES, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY WARD, et al., Defendants NO. 5:20-cv-00336-TES-MSH United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division Filed November 09, 2022 Counsel Christopher L. Jones, Rock Spring, GA, Pro Se. William Peters, Atlanta, GA, Michael A. Strickland, Moultrie, GA, for Defendants. Hyles, M. Stephen, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's fifth motion to compel (ECF No. 175), motion to clarify admissions and to sanction Defendants (ECF No. 176), and sixth motion to compel (ECF No. 218). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's fifth motion to compel and motion to clarify are granted in part and denied in part. His sixth motion to compel is denied. I. Plaintiff's Fifth Motion to Compel (ECF No. 175) Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Defendants to adequately respond to interrogatories and requests to produce served by Plaintiff on May 6, 2022. See Pl.'s 4th Mot. to Compel 1, ECF No. 151. The Court previously determined that the issues raised by Plaintiff's motion could not have been raised earlier. Order 2 n.2, Aug. 30, 2022, ECF No. 188. After encouragement from the Court, Defendants responded to the motion to compel on September 23, 2022 (ECF No. 211). The Court will address each issue raised by Plaintiff in this motion. A. Interrogatory Number 1 Interrogatory number one asks each Defendant to “[s]tate the name, address, and telephone number of any individual who has personal knowledge, information, documents, papers or records which relate or support any of the accusations set forth in Plaintiff's Statement of Claim.” Pl.'s 5th Mot. to Compel 2, ECF No. 175. Defendants responded that all the parties may have knowledge about Plaintiff's Complaint, they could be contacted through counsel, and the individuals identified in Defendants' document productions may have knowledge of the facts of Plaintiff's Complaint. Id. Plaintiff contends the response is insufficient because he “seeks the names of persons, other than the [D]efendants, whom were at Autry State Prison on 9-10-18 and observed the events that led to the removal of [P]laintiff from his cell, placed into handcuffs, taken to ID, questioned ... and knew why [P]laintiff was being ... transferred to Macon State Prison.” Id. The Court disagrees with Plaintiff that Defendants' response is insufficient. Plaintiff asks the Defendants about witnesses who will support Plaintiff's Complaint, which is a matter best determined by Plaintiff. Moreover, the specific information Plaintiff seeks in his motion is not what he asked in the interrogatory. Thus, Plaintiff's motion to compel as to interrogatory number one is DENIED. B. Interrogatory Number 2 In interrogatory number 2, Plaintiff asks each Defendant to “[s]tate the name, address, and telephone number of each person who may or will be called as a witness, including expert witnesses. Include a summary of testimony each is expected to give.” Pl.'s 5th Mot. to Compel 2. In their response, Defendants referred Plaintiff to their response to interrogatory number one and stated they had not retained an expert witness but indicated they would supplement their response if they did. Id. Plaintiff contends this is insufficient because he asked for a summary of their expected testimony. Id. Defendants respond that they expect to call each Defendant to testify about “the allegations made by Plaintiff against each of them in the various pleadings filed by Plaintiff.” Defs.' Resp. to 5th Mot. to Compel 2, ECF No. 211. *2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(i) requires a party to disclose each person likely to have discoverable information, including “the subjects of that information.” Plaintiff's interrogatory—as defense counsel has pointed out—is a duplicate of Defendants' own interrogatory to Plaintiff. Simply responding that Defendants will testify about Plaintiff's allegations is insufficient. Plaintiff has set out ad nauseam his contentions about what each Defendant did, and he is entitled to a general idea of how each Defendant will testify in response. See Barnes v. District of Columbia, 283 F.R.D. 8, 12 (D.D.C. 2012); Exec. Ambulatory Surgical Ctr., LLC v. Allstate Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., No.: 21-10985, 2022 WL 469081, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15, 2022). Defendants' summaries need not be detailed, lengthy, or set forth each fact to which the Defendant will testify. A general summary contained in a concise paragraph per Defendant is sufficient. Plaintiff's motion to compel as to this interrogatory is GRANTED. C. Interrogatory Number 3 Plaintiff's third interrogatory asks Defendants to “[l]ist and identify in specific detail every document(s) or other items of real or documentary evidence having any connection or containing any information which is or may be relevant to any of the issues involved [in the case]. In the alternative, you may attach a copy of each such document[.]” Pl.'s 5th Mot. to Compel 3. Defendants responded to the interrogatory by referring to the documents they had produced, and in response to the motion to compel, they referred to additional documents produced subsequent to Plaintiff's fifth motion to compel. Defs.' Resp. to 5th Mot. to Compel 2. Plaintiff's interrogatory is quite vague and general. In his motion to compel, he lists certain specific items which he contends are missing, but his interrogatory did not specifically identify these items. As a result, he leaves it up to defense counsel to determine relevance. Further, it appears at least some of the specific items Plaintiff requests were produced subsequent to Plaintiff's motion to compel. See Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order, Aug. 19, 2022, ECF No. 182. Plaintiff, however, makes a strong argument in regard to one specific item. Defendants have produced a September 11, 2018, email from Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDC”) Investigator Christopher Bish discussing an interview with Plaintiff following his transfer from Autry State Prison (“ASP”) to Macon State Prison (“MSP”). See Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order Ex. 3, at 123, June 17, 2022, ECF No. 144-3. In this email, Bish stated that an “original petition” Plaintiff prepared regarding conditions at ASP would be “attached” to Bish's “forthcoming investigative summary.” Id. The Court has reviewed the discovery produced by Defendants and GDC, however, and no such investigative summary is included. Either Bish did not prepare an investigative summary as stated in the email, or one was prepared and for some reason not produced. This investigative summary—if it exists—is highly relevant to Plaintiff's retaliatory transfer and due process claims, and is discoverable. Therefore, as to this particular document, Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED. Defense counsel is ORDERED to consult with GDC counsel and determine if such investigative summary exists, and if it does, to produce it along with a copy of the referenced petition. If the document does not exist, an explanation for its absence should be provided in light of Bish's explicit reference to it. D. Interrogatory Number 4 Plaintiff's fourth interrogatory asks each Defendant to “[s]tate whether you have made any statement in any form to any person regarding any of the accusations or issues set forth in Plaintiff's sworn statement of claim” and further asks to whom the statements were made and who has custody of them. Pl.'s 5th Mot. Compel. 3. Defendants responded that any statements made had been produced in the various document productions served on Plaintiff. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges the emails produced are incomplete and that his communications to MSP staff regarding his conditions of confinement and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims are missing. Id. He states, “If nothing else, Plaintiff is seeking the defendants to state what actions were taken in response to communications (oral and/or written) from the plaintiff.” Id. *3 Plaintiff's interrogatory is vague. He specifically asks for “statements,” which usually refers to some formal account by a witness of a particular incident. Plaintiff's motion to compel seeks a much broader category of information, which is not what he requests in the interrogatory. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to compel as to interrogatory number four is DENIED. E. Interrogatory Number 5 In interrogatory number 5, Plaintiff asks Defendants to “[i]dentify each person, department, division, or other entity that conducted an investigation to determine any of the facts to any of the issues in this case and indicate the nature of each such investigation” and whether any reports were made. Pl.'s 5th Mot. Compel 5. In their response, Defendants objected on the grounds that the interrogatory sought information prepared in anticipation of litigation or was otherwise protected as work product or by the attorney-client privilege. Id. Defendants then stated that, subject to the objections, all investigations had been produced in the separate document productions. Id. In their response to the motion to compel, Defendants again assert that any non-privileged investigation has been identified and produced in the separate document productions. Defs.' Resp. to 5th Mot. to Compel 3. One of the primary issues in this case is Plaintiff's alleged involvement in a disturbance at ASP on September 10, 2018, which is the purported reason for his transfer from ASP to MSP Tier II on the same day. The Court has carefully reviewed the documents produced by Defendants, however, and other than cursory references to Plaintiff having participated in a “major disturbance” at ASP on September 10, 2018, none of the documents produced describe Plaintiff's alleged participation in the disturbance or provide any insight whatsoever as to why he was transferred from ASP to MSP Tier II.[1] Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order Ex. 2, at 16, Aug. 19, 2022, ECF No. 182-2; Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order Ex. 3, at 3, 29, Aug. 19, 2022, ECF No. 182-3. Defendants produced documents regarding a disturbance at ASP on September 4, 2018, but Plaintiff's name is not mentioned anywhere in those investigative reports. Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order Ex. 3, at 31-80, Aug. 19, 2022. There is no incident report or other such document describing what Plaintiff did that resulted in his transfer. Investigator Bish interviewed Plaintiff on September 11, 2018, and Plaintiff appears to have discussed his purported involvement in a “sit-in” at ASP, but that interview was conducted after he was already transferred. Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order Ex. 1, at 2, Aug. 19, 2022, ECF No. 182-1. Presumably, Defendants will, at some point, present evidence to counter Plaintiff's contention that his transfer from ASP was a retaliatory transfer in violation of his First Amendment and due process rights. Plaintiff is entitled to discover what that evidence is. Perhaps there is no additional evidence beyond what has been produced, and Defendants will rely on that and witness testimony. From the Court's perspective, however, it seems odd that there is not some sort of incident report or equivalent document describing the conduct that led to Plaintiff's transfer. Therefore, defense counsel is again ORDERED to consult with GDC's counsel to make certain that there are no additional documents. If there are more documents, they must be produced. To the extent described herein, Plaintiff's motion to compel as to interrogatory number 5 is GRANTED. F. Interrogatory Number 6 *4 Interrogatory number six asks each Defendant to identify any previous litigation in which they were involved. Pl.'s 5th Mot. to Compel 6. Defendants objected to the interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome and on the grounds that it sought information that was irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Plaintiff's allegations in this case are very fact-specific, and his broad request is not proportional to the needs of this case. Plaintiff's motion, therefore, is DENIED as to this interrogatory. G. Interrogatory Number 7 Interrogatory number seven requests the job description of each Defendant. Pl.'s 5th Mot. to Compel 6-7. Defendants have now produced those job descriptions. Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s 5th Mot. to Compel Ex. B, ECF No. 211-2. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion as to this interrogatory is DENIED AS MOOT. H. Request to Produce Numbers 1-4 In his first request for production, Plaintiff asks for all documents identified in Defendants' responses to interrogatories number one through seven. Pl.'s 5th Mot. to Compel 7. His second request asks for all documents “in any way constituting, referring, or relating to any written or oral communications relating to the subject matter of the lawsuit.” Id. His third request seeks all statements that Defendants “have obtained and/or prepared related in any way to this litigation.” Id. Finally, request to produce number four instructs the Defendants to produce all written communication “between Plaintiff and Defendants and the Defendants and their agents and/or employees of the [GDC].” Id. Most of the issues relating to these requests to produce are discussed above in connection with Plaintiff's interrogatories, and Plaintiff's motion to compel does not include additional argument as to why they are deficient except to say they are “fraudulent” and in “bad faith.” Pl.'s 5th Mot. to Compel 7. Regarding request number four, he also seems to suggest that the Court's previous production orders required Defendants to produce material protected by the work product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. Id. Regarding request number 4, the Court's previous orders for production of communications among Defendants and between Defendants and Plaintiff did not require production of privileged communications. Defendants indicate they have produced non-privileged responsive documents, and the Court notes their production includes emails amongst Defendants regarding Plaintiff's placement and retention in Tier II. See Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order 929-62, Aug. 16, 2022, ECF No. 180. Plaintiff suggests these emails are “partial and incomplete.” Pl.'s Mot. to Compel 4. He has made this allegation previously based on his assertions that 1) the documents produced by Defendants include emails that were sent but not responded to, 2) the documents do not include emails from some Defendants, and 3) the emails appear altered or edited. Pl.'s Mot. to Reconsider 4, ECF No. 125. The fact that an email was sent does not necessarily entail there was an email in response, even if the sender posed a question to the recipient. Further, it may be that some Defendants did not send emails related to the issues in this case. Finally, when emails are printed and copied for production in discovery, their appearance may appear altered. Furthermore, the Court agrees with Defendants' objection to request number four that it is overly broad. It is not limited to communications relevant to the claims in this case. Nevertheless, Plaintiff alleges he wrote “a dozen letters each week to the defendants about the claims raised in this civil action.” Pl.'s Mot. to Compel 4. Based on the Court's experience with Plaintiff, this seems entirely plausible. There is some correspondence from Plaintiff to Defendants included in Defendants' document production, but whether this is the universe of correspondence sent by Plaintiff to Defendants as it relates to the claims in this case is not clear. Further, it is not clear that the GDC kept, or was required to keep, the mountainous volume of correspondence sent by Plaintiff outside of the grievance process. However, if such correspondence exists, it is relevant to whether Defendants had notice of the conditions of confinement at issue. Therefore, defense counsel is ORDERED to confer with GDC counsel and determine whether there is additional correspondence from Plaintiff related to the claims in this case, and, if so, to produce it. Thus, to the extent described herein, Plaintiff's motion to compel as to his request for production is GRANTED IN PART. II. Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify Admissions and for Sanctions (ECF No. 176) A. Requests for Admissions *5 Plaintiff moves for clarification of Defendants' responses to requests for admissions. Plaintiff's motion includes a request that the Court advise him on the implications of Defendants' stipulation that they were required to comply with GDC regulations. Pl.'s Mot. to Clarify 1, ECF No. 176. The Court cannot give Plaintiff legal advice, so that request is denied. Moreover, in response to Plaintiff's motion, Defendants amended many of their responses to reflect their obligation to comply with GDC policies (ECF No. 210). The Court has reviewed Defendants' response to Plaintiff's motion to clarify admissions, including their amended responses. The Court is largely satisfied they are adequate; however, there are issues related to Defendants' responses to the requests for admissions that require supplementation. First, Defendants' response to the motion to clarify does not include a response from Defendant Pope. Defendants did not supplement his responses because the Court had recommended his dismissal. Defs.' Resp. to Mot. to Clarify 6, ECF No. 210. The Court has withdrawn that recommendation, however, and, therefore, Defendant Pope is ordered to respond to Plaintiff's motion to clarify admissions. Second, Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff's issues with the admissions raised in his second motion to compel (ECF No. 129). Although the Court previously issued an order (ECF No. 166) on this motion, it did not address the requests for admissions because Defendants had not provided the Court with their responses or responded to Plaintiff's motion with a substantive response. See Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s 3rd Mot. to Compel 1, ECF No. 135 (failing to provide substantive response to motion to compel regarding admissions); Order 2, Aug. 8, 2022, ECF No. 177 (noting absence of Defendants' responses to requests for admissions). Plaintiff specifically references the second motion to compel in his motion to clarify. Pl.'s Mot. to Clarify 4. Most of the issues raised in the second motion to compel are addressed in Defendants' recent amendments to their admission responses. There are some issues raised in Plaintiff's second motion to compel, however, that require a response: 1. Plaintiff challenges Defendant Ward's response to request number two, which asks Ward to admit that he and Crickmar “were the senior members of the inspection team in dorm F-2 on September 10, 2018.” Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order 5, Aug. 16, 2022. Defendants denied the allegation. Id. at 11. Plaintiff contends this response was in bad faith, asking, “Who ranks higher than the Commissioner?” Pl.'s 3rd Mot. to Compel 4, ECF No. 129. 2. Plaintiff challenges Defendant Nelson's response to request number six in which he asked him to admit that “[y]ou and/or your office/agents received and transmitted interoffice communications concerning the assignment of inmate Christopher Lyle Jones #969837 to the Tier II program at Macon State Prison.” Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order 68, Aug. 16, 2022. Plaintiff also challenges Nelson's response to request number eight, which asks him to admit that “[y]ou and/or your office/agents received letters from Christopher Lyle Jones #969837 concerning the allegations used for assignment to the Tier II program at Macon State Prison.” Id. Defendant Nelson responded to both requests by admitting that “Plaintiff was properly placed into a Tier II program,” but denying the remainder of the requests. Id. at 84. Plaintiff challenges the responses by noting emails demonstrating Nelson's receipt of the referenced communication. Pl.'s 3rd Mot. to Compel 4. *6 3. Plaintiff challenges Defendant Perry's response to request numbers one and two, asking him to admit that he received letters from, and spoke with, Plaintiff about the denial of doctor-ordered medical care. Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order 62, Aug. 16, 2022. Perry objected to the requests on the grounds that they required him to speculate as to information sought but then denied them as stated. Id. at 103. Plaintiff challenges the responses by referencing grievances and letters he sent to Perry showing Perry's response “is a clear fiction.” Pl.'s 3rd Mot. to Compel 5. 4. Plaintiff challenges Defendant Eaddie's response to request number one, which asks him to admit that he “responded to Grievance #277304 about denial of batteries for a doctor-ordered TENS unit.” Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order 65, Aug. 16, 2022. Eaddie objected to the request on the grounds that it required him to speculate as to information sought but then denied it as stated. Id. at 96. Plaintiff challenges the response on the grounds that Eaddie gave a statement regarding the grievance. Pl.'s 3rd Mot. to Compel 7. 5. Plaintiff challenges Defendant Pope's responses to requests for admission numbers one through three. Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order 60, Aug. 16, 2022; Pl.'s 3rd Mot. to Compel 9-10. These requests refer to Pope's job duties and would likely have been included in Defendants' response to Plaintiff's motion to clarify if Pope had responded. Defendant Pope should address these requests in his response to Plaintiff's motion to clarify. Defendants are ORDERED TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR RESPONSE to Plaintiff's requests for admissions and motion to clarify as set forth above.[2] B. Sanctions Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendants for what he contends are “false” and “bad faith responses” to his requests for admissions. Pl.'s Mot. to Clarify 4. He requests various remedies, including payment of “reasonable expenses,” prohibiting Defendants from supporting or opposing claims and defenses, ordering that designated facts be established, appointing a stenographer so that Plaintiff may depose “and alleviate the taint of the [D]efendants['] bad faith,” and other relief it deems appropriate. Id. at 10. *7 Plaintiff cites various provisions of Rule 37, but the one applicable to requests for admissions is Rule 37(c)(2). It provides that “[i]f a party fails to admit what is requested under Rule 36 and if the requesting party later proves a document to be genuine or the matter true, the requesting party may move that the party who failed to admit pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in making that proof.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(2). A trial court has broad discretion to control discovery, including the choice whether or not to impose Rule 37 sanctions. Phipps v. Blakeney, 8 F.3d 788, 790 (11th Cir. 1993). Here, even assuming Defendants initial responses to the requests for admissions were deficient, Defendant amended their responses, thus relieving Plaintiff of the need to pursue the various mechanisms he proposes to prove the truth of the initially denied request. Further, because Plaintiff is pro se, he is not entitled to attorney's fees. Nevertheless, the Court is not impressed with Defendants' initial responses to the requests for admissions or the fairly cavalier approach to discovery that has been demonstrated by defense counsel at various times in this case. At the same time, though, the Court recognizes the difficulty defense counsel faces in this matter. Plaintiff has amended his pleadings on several occasions and taken a scatter-gun approach to the case, seeking to bring claims against a multitude of defendants, who appear, at first blush, to be peripheral to the primary wrongs he seeks to remedy. Moreover, defense counsel does not have direct access to many of the documents Plaintiff seeks and has had to work through GDC counsel to obtain them. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED at this time. However, the Court's patience is wearing thin, and as the case proceeds, it will impose sanctions if warranted.[3] III. Plaintiff's Sixth Motion to Compel (ECF No. 218) In Plaintiff's sixth motion to compel, he complains that defense counsel did not respond to a letter he wrote asking him to identify signatures on certain documents received in discovery. Pl.'s 6th Mot. to Compel 1-2, ECF No. 218. Plaintiff's motion does not attach the letter or indicate when it was sent. Plaintiff's motion is dated October 3, 2022. Id. at 2. Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendants to identify the signatures. Id. Defendants responded on October 10, 2022 (ECF No. 220). They argue 1) the letter was not a proper discovery request because it was neither an interrogatory nor request for production, and 2) Plaintiff sent his letter—labeled as a “Rule 37 Request”—on September 23, 2022, only twelve days before he filed his motion to compel. Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s 6th Mot. to Compel 1-2, ECF No. 220; Defs.' Ex. A, at 1, ECF No. 220-1. The Court agrees with Defendants. Plaintiff's letter to counsel is not a proper discovery request, and this is not a mere technicality because there are limitations on how many discovery requests a party can serve and rules regarding the time to respond. See M.D. Ga. LR 33.1; M.D. Ga. LR 34; Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). These rules would be rendered meaningless if parties could simply demand discovery via letter. Moreover, Plaintiff's motion was filed before the thirty days allowed to respond to a discovery request. Finally, the rules require that a party “confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action” prior to filing a motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Plaintiff's purported “Rule 37 Request” attached to his original letter does not satisfy this requirement. Therefore, Plaintiff's sixth motion to compel (ECF No. 218) is DENIED. IV. GDC Standard Operation Procedures (“SOPs”) 103.58 and 205.57 *8 Although not the subject of Plaintiff's current motions, Plaintiff has raised an issue with discovery of two GDC SOPs, which he claims prisoners are barred from accessing. Pl.'s Resp. to Ct. Order 6, ECF No. 186; Pl.'s 4th Mot. to Appoint Couns. Attach. 1, at 2, ECF No. 163-1. The first is SOP 103.58, which, according to Plaintiff, “governs the criteria” for a Security Threat Group (“STG”) designation. Pl.'s 4th Mot. to Appoint Couns. Attach. 1, at 2. According to the record in this case, one of the reasons for Plaintiff's placement in Tier II was his membership in STG “G-Shyne.” Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order Ex. 2, at 16, Aug. 19, 2022. Plaintiff denies being a member of G-Shyne, having previously argued it is a “black only gang” and noting that he is a “blue-eyed Caucasian.” Pl.'s 1st Mot. to Compel 6, ECF No. 76. He also reported that while his G-Shyne designation was eventually removed from his institutional file, it “was maintained as an excuse to keep [him] assigned to [Tier II].” Id. The Court reviewed the GDC website, and notes that SOP 103.58 does not appear among the policies that are available for public viewing. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not pointed the Court to any discovery request specifically asking Defendants for this policy or a motion to compel asking the Court to order them—or the GDC—to produce it in discovery or for in-camera review. The only mention of SOP 103.58 was in connection with Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel, wherein he cited its “contraband” status as grounds for appointing counsel or conducting an in-camera review. Pl.'s 4th Mot. to Appoint Couns. Attach. 1, at 3. This is not how discovery works. Further, according to Plaintiff's own statements, the G-Shyne designation was removed, making the relevant issue not the criteria for designation as an STG but why Plaintiff was placed and retained in Tier II despite—as evidenced by the designation's removal—not being a member of G-Shyne.[4] The other policy requested by Plaintiff is SOP 205.07, which Plaintiff alleges describes the “specific post duties” of personnel in disciplinary isolation and segregation. Pl.'s 4th Mot. to Appoint Couns. Attach. 1, at 2. Again, the Court does not see this policy on GDC's website. But once more, Plaintiff does not point the Court to where he ever requested this specific policy or moved the Court to compel its production by Defendants. His focus has always been on SOP 209.08, which has been produced. Pl.'s 1st Mot. to Compel 6; Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order 1054-72, Aug. 16, 2022. This policy sets out the SOPs for administrative segregation, including the responsibilities and duties of GDC personnel working there. Defs.' Resp. to Ct. Order 1065-71, Aug. 16, 2022. Moreover, Plaintiff indicates that Defendants' recent document production has allowed him to determine “how staffing duties were conducted” in administrative segregation. Pl.'s Mot. to Reconsider 5, ECF No. 202. Finally, the issue in this case is whether Defendants violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights, not whether they violated a prison policy. See Jones v. Schofield, No. 1:08-CV-7-WLS, 2009 WL 902154, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2009) (“In a § 1983 action, a federal court considers whether a constitutional right has been infringed, not whether bureaucratic procedures have been violated.” (quoting Rineholtz. v. Campbell 64 F. Supp. 2d 721, 731 (W.D. Tenn. 1999))). Based on Plaintiff's failure to show the policies' relevance or move specifically for their production, the Court finds no grounds for ordering their production, conducting in camera review, or appointing counsel because of their restricted status. CONCLUSION Defendants shall have THIRTY (30) DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER. The Court is giving this period of time to allow Defendants to fully comply with the Court's directives discussed herein. The Court is also placing the parties on notice that its willingness to grant extensions to either party will be severely restricted going forward because the pace of this case has been far too slow. Defendants are instructed to file with the Court any supplemental discovery served on Plaintiff. Further, following receipt of Defendants' response to this Order and review of their supplemental discovery responses, the Court will consider whether it is necessary to issue a subpoena to a representative of the GDC to appear before the Court and testify as to the completeness of documents they have provided to defense counsel to assist in his responding to Plaintiff's discovery requests. *9 SO ORDERED, this 9th day of November, 2022. Footnotes [1] The Court's review included the documents Defendants produced in response to the Court order that they produce “[a]ny documents related to Plaintiff's alleged involvement in a labor strike at Autry State Prison in September 2018.” Order 2, July 20, 2022, ECF No. 166. [2] On October 19, 2022, the Court received Plaintiff's reply (ECF No. 221) to Defendants' response to his motion to clarify admissions (ECF No. 176). He suggested the deficiencies he pointed out in his motions (ECF Nos. 129, 176) were simply meant to be “examples” and that they were not exhaustive of his issues with Defendants' responses to the requests for admissions. Pl.'s Reply 1, ECF No. 221. In the purported reply, Plaintiff sought to raise numerous other objections with Defendants' responses to the requests. Further, he stated he only gave examples because the Court previously “admonished” him for filing a sixteen page motion to compel. Id. at 2. The Clerk properly rejected Plaintiff's reply because it greatly exceeded the page limitation under the local rules. Plaintiff, therefore, filed a motion for leave to file the lengthy reply to assert the numerous other objections (ECF No. 222). Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. At no point has the Court admonished Plaintiff for filing valid objections. The Court has criticized Plaintiff for filling his motions with extraneous and irrelevant material and for being unnecessarily verbose. If Plaintiff had other complaints about Defendants' responses to his requests for admissions, the time to raise them was in his third motion to compel (ECF No. 129) and his motion to clarify admissions (ECF No. 176). The Court has previously warned Plaintiff that it is not going to resolve discovery disputes piecemeal. Order 2, Aug. 8, 2022. If he needed more pages to raise his discovery issues, the time to request them was when he filed his initial motions. Further, Plaintiff should have been able to raise whatever issues he has with Defendants' response within the page limitations allowed by the rules. [3] Plaintiff's fourth motion to compel was filed on June 25, 2022, and was premised on Defendants' complete failure to respond to his interrogatories and requests to produce. Pl.'s 4th Mot. to Compel 1, ECF No. 151. Defendants subsequently responded to the discovery requests, and the adequacy of their response is addressed herein in connection with Plaintiff's fifth motion to compel. Therefore, this motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff also requests sanctions, but as explained herein, the Court does not believe sanctions are warranted at this time. [4] Of course, if at any point Defendants rely on SOP 103.58 to justify Plaintiff's placement and retention in Tier II, then the Court may need to revisit this issue.