Joshua Jeter, Plaintiff, v. Lt. Miguel Cleveland; Ofc. Prevost; Lt. Delk; Ofc. Ramp; Sgt. Christopher Timmons; Lieutenant Philip Douglas; Major Gregg; Lt. Jorge Romero; Warden Stephan; Associate Warden Devine Carter; Associate Warden Frederick; Associate Warden Peeples; Deputy Warden Tamara Collins; Lt. Tiarra Thomas; Brittany Cunningham; Counsel Substitute R. Rice; Captain Floravia Jones; Lt. Randy Ward; Mental Health Nurse Thurnese Williams; Nurse Christina Hendrickson, Defendants Case No. 2:22-cv-01651-SAL-MGB United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division Filed February 21, 2023 Baker, Mary G., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Plaintiff Joshua Jeter, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1] Plaintiff filed this action on May 25, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted by correctional officers at Broad River Correctional Institution on several occasions and that he was retaliated against for filing a PREA[2] complaint. (Dkt. No. 29.) The Amended Complaint alleges events occurring from June of 2019 through November of 2021. (Id.) On December 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time, asking for additional time to conduct discovery and asking for leave to serve more than 25 interrogatories on Defendants. (Dkt. Nos. 33; 33-1.) In an Order filed January 17, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to serve additional discovery requests on Defendants. More specifically, the Court found, “[i]n addition to any requests for production or other discovery Plaintiff may seek, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to serve an additional 20 interrogatories—Plaintiff should take care not to duplicate any interrogatories to which Defendants have already responded.” (Dkt. No. 40.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve his discovery requests on Defendants by February 7, 2023, and for Defendants to respond by March 15, 2023. (Id.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, which he appears to have mailed before he received the Court's January 17, 2023 Order. (Dkt. No. 43; Dkt. No. 43-1.) Plaintiff's Motion asks that the Court order Defendants to respond to certain interrogatories and requests for production. (Dkt. No. 43.) Plaintiff lists the discovery requests at issue and summarizes Defendants’ objections to the requests. (Id. at 1–5.) In their response in opposition, Defendants assert that per the Court's January 17, 2023 Order, they have until March 15, 2023 to further respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 45 at 2.) Defendants also maintain that to the extent they previously objected to Plaintiff's requests on grounds not addressed in the Court's January 17, 2023 Order, Defendants “intend for these objections to stand.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply brief. Given the objections raised by Defendants to portions of Plaintiff's discovery requests, the Court issues this Order for the sake of efficiency. This Order does not negate any findings or instructions contained in the January 17, 2023 Order. DISCUSSION Plaintiff's First Request for Production No. 3 asks for “any and all information about plaintiff being validated gang member.” (Dkt. No. 43 at 1.) In their objections, Defendants cite the SCDC “gang designation policy” and state it would be a security risk to release the policy to inmates. (Id. at 2.) More specifically, Defendants state the policy “outlines in detail the type of information and intelligence the agency uses to uncover, recognize and combat prison gang activity and the agency's use of that intelligence.” (Id.) *2 In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that “he is not a gang member” and claims he has been falsely accused of “gang affiliation to defame plaintiff's character.” (Id.) The Amended Complaint alleges Plaintiff and his cell were searched on several occasions, wherein Plaintiff was assaulted and his personal property was confiscated. (Dkt. No. 29.) It appears these searches were motivated by Plaintiff's alleged gang affiliation. The Amended Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff has been designated as a gang member without any proof “for retaliation purpose.” (Id.) The Amended Complaint brings claims for First Amendment retaliation and excessive force. (Id.) While it appears Plaintiff's alleged designation as a gang member is relevant to this case, the Court will not order the production of the SCDC gang designation policy given the security concerns expressed by Defendants. Rather, the more relevant documents on this issue would be those specific to Plaintiff's designation as a gang member. To the extent such documents exist, Plaintiff should have an opportunity to review those documents. Given Defendants’ security concerns about gang information, the Court will allow for a limited production of these documents. More specifically, Plaintiff should be allowed to review these documents in a secure environment for a limited period of time. Plaintiff's First Request for Production No. 4 asks for “property inventory form (19-2) on record since plaintiff has been at Broad River from 2018 until 2022.” (Dkt. No. 43 at 2.) Relatedly, Request for Production No. 9 asks for a “copy of whole property policy.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff claims Defendants have not supplemented their response to Request No. 4, despite stating they would. To the extent Defendants have an inventory of the property confiscated from Plaintiff, this inventory form should be produced. With respect to the “property policy,” it is unclear what Plaintiff is referring to here. To the extent documents exist specific to the confiscation of Plaintiff's property from June 2019 through December 2021, they should be produced. However, there is no basis to require the production of an SCDC policy on this issue. Plaintiff's First Request for Production No. 5 asks for “any and all copies of plaintiff's disciplinary and hearing record forms.” (Dkt. No. 43 at 2.) Relatedly, Plaintiff's First Request for Production Nos. 6 and 7 ask for copies of “incident report forms” and grievances form 10-5 and 10-58” that Plaintiff has filed from 2019 until 2022. (Id. at 2–3.) Here, Plaintiff states that while Defendants produced documents responsive to Request No. 5, they did not produce “the incident report or the disciplinary hearing sheet,” which are needed “to show that prison officials are retaliating against pro se plaintiff by bringing bogus charges as a way to block pro se plaintiff from visitation, canteen, and custody level drop.” (Id.) With respect to Request Nos. 6 and 7, Plaintiff asserts Defendants only gave Plaintiff “a copy” of his “charges from the internet which is not the incident reports,” and they only provided “a copy of when [Plaintiff] filed grievances not the actual copy of grievance.” (Id. at 2–3.) The Court finds that any documents relevant to Plaintiff's disciplinary charges and/or disciplinary hearings from June 2019 through December 2021 should be produced, given the allegations in the Amended Complaint. To the extent these documents include incident reports and/or disciplinary hearing sheets, they should be produced. More generally, any incident reports pertaining to Plaintiff and any grievances filed by Plaintiff, from June 2019 through December 2021, should also be produced given the allegations in the Amended Complaint. To the extent possible, these documents should be produced in their original format. Plaintiff's First Request for Production No. 10 asks for a “copy of restricted use of force policy” and Request for Production No. 13 asks for “any and all pictures of video footage Broad River has on plaintiff to include use of force videos, pictures of tattoos or body of plaintiff, and any video footage of plaintiff from 2019 until 4-6-2021.” (Dkt. No.43 at 3–4.) In their objections, Defendants claim that it would be a security risk to release the SCDC use of force policy to inmates. (Id. at 3.) It appears Defendants also objected to Plaintiff's Request No. 13. (Id. at 4.) In his Motion, Plaintiff states that Defendants have assaulted him on numerous occasions and that the use of force policy is relevant to his excessive force claims. He further asserts he needs the video footage of the assault to support his excessive force claims. (Id. at 4.) *3 Upon review, the Amended Complaint alleges Plaintiff was assaulted in 2019, 2020, and 2021. (Dkt. No. 29.) To the extent there is video footage of any of the assaults alleged in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff should have an opportunity to review this footage. Further, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has directly rejected security concerns as a reason to preclude production of a use-of-force policy in excessive force cases. Brooks v. Johnson, 924 F.3d 104, 122 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting “relevant use-of-force policies routinely are considered in excessive-force litigation, including litigation that arises in the prison context” and finding magistrate judge erred by denying motion to compel “relevant policies concerning use of force against inmates in similar circumstances”). In Brooks, the Court found that “whether an officer has complied with or, alternatively, violated a relevant use-of-force policy, while not dispositive, is highly relevant to” the question of subjective intent in excessive force claim. Id. “Adherence to a policy ... provide[s] powerful evidence that the application of force was tempered and that the officers acted in good faith.” Id. Given the direct relevance of the SCDC use-of-force policy to the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff should have an opportunity to review this policy. In sum, the Court orders that Plaintiff be allowed to review any existing video footage and the SCDC use-of-force policy in a secure environment for a limited period of time. Plaintiff's First Interrogatory No. 1 asks, “Ofc. Prevost, Lt. Cleveland, Lt. Delk, Lt. Ramp, Sgt. Timmons, Sgt. Romero, how many pounds do each of you weigh?” (Dkt. No. 43 at 4.) While Defendants object to this request as irrelevant, Plaintiff claims it is relevant to his excessive force claim. (Id.) Upon review, the Court finds the current weight of these Defendants is not relevant to events that occurred almost two or three years ago. Further, to the extent video footage of these incidents exist, such footage would be the best evidence pertaining to Defendants’ weight at the time of the incidents at issue. Plaintiff's First Interrogatory No. 5 asks, “Lt. Cleveland did you end up in route and more officers come to my cell on 4/6/2021 while I was in the Moultrie dorm? Name all who [were] present.” (Dkt. No. 43 at 5.) Plaintiff appears to dispute that Defendants listed all the officers who were present during the incident at issue. To the extent Defendants discover more information about who was present during the incident at issue, they should supplement their response. However, there is no basis to find that Defendants’ response is insufficient in its current form. Plaintiff's First Interrogatory No. 6 asks, “Lt. Cleveland did you come to RHU on 4-7-2021 to strip search and cell search Mr. Jeter? If so, why?” (Dkt. No. 43 at 5.) It appears Defendants responded to this request by referencing “incident reports and documents submitted in response” to the related request for production. (Id.) In his Motion, Plaintiff claims Defendants are not directly answering this request and that “no contraband was ever found.” (Id.) Here, it is unclear how Defendants’ response to this interrogatory was improper under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent Defendants discover more information responsive to this request, they should supplement their response. However, there is no basis to find that Defendants’ response is insufficient in its current form. Finally, Plaintiff's First Interrogatory No. 13 asks “Lt. Cleveland, Lt. Delk, Lt. Ramp, Ofc. Prevost, Sergeant Romero, have any of you ever stolen Mr. Jeter's legal work? Read Mr. Jeter's legal work or took a picture or video of it anytime while searching his property out of his presence or know someone who did?” (Dkt. No. 43 at 5.) It appears Defendants objected to this response on vagueness. (Id.) In his Motion, Plaintiff states “legal work consist of trial transcripts, appeal papers, legal cases, legal notes, and certified legal mail envelopes.” (Id.) Presumably, any property taken from Plaintiff would be included in the inventory of his confiscated property. Nevertheless, the Court orders Defendants to answer whether they confiscated any of Plaintiff's legal work; namely, trial transcripts, appeal papers, legal cases, legal notes, and certified legal mail envelopes. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motion is granted to the extent Defendants are ORDERED to provide supplemental responses as directed in this order by March 15, 2023. The remainder of Plaintiff's Motion is denied. *4 IT IS SO ORDERED Footnotes [1] Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. [2] PREA is an acronym for the Prison Rape Elimination Act.