Motion for reconsideration doc.109 main 06-24-2016

IN THE UNITED

<k.qi. i//çe g . b#i :i%W-'AT phNvllti' sFILRDSTATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN

DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA DAW ILLE DIVISION

M 'VIN L. SUTHERLIN, .TR.,

JUN 2 N 2016; :....

JUL . D0 ,BY:

Plnïntiff,Civil Action No. 4:15CV00037

LIEUTENM T J. W . SM ITH ,

and

SERGEANT H. S. RICHARDSON,

and

OFFICERN. M . SLOW R, and

OFFICER M . C. PACE, and

OFFICER R. C. LANDVUM , and

OFFICER D . C. LAN CA STER, and

OFFICER W . C. SHIW LY, and

OFFICER W . R. M ERRILL, and

OFFICER J. D. DIXON, and

OFFICER L. D. LAND,

Defendants.

AG ND PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFEO ANTS DISCOVERY

LETTER (Dkt. No. 102)

Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 109 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 5 Pageid#: 1456

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Alvin L. Sutherlin, Jr. (Pro Se) in response to defendantsDiscovery letter (Dkt. No. 106).

l

The defendants have provided three additional G idavits from Officer W . C.Shively Officer L. D . Land, and Offcer D. C. Lancaster. Both defendants OfticerL. D. L> d, alzd Officer D. C. Lancaster state that botlz were wenring cameras onSeptember 25th, 2013 when they entered the Plaintiff s home that day. Thedefendants were ordered to provide in an nm davit naming which oo cers did nothave a cam era. The ollly officer to date that provides an affdavit sta:ng he (Iid nothave a cam era is Lieutenant J. W . Smith. To date, Plaintiff has not been givenany video data of any kind from Officer L. D. Land and Officer D. C. Lancaster .

tplease see: Copies of attached affidavits 9om Officer D. C. Lancaster, Officer W .C. Shively Officer L. D. Land and Lieuten>t J. W . Smith.l

Pursuant to the Honorable Judge Ballou's Order on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dld. No.90) the defendants were ordered to produced Wdeo data from each defendantpresent wearing a camera this includes Officer L.D. Land and Officer D. C.Lancmster.

The order reads as follow in part:

(l) Defendants shall produce a digital 1og of the history of the videos as well

as relevant metadata for each video tlzat may indicate the identity of the

offcer who wis wearing the camera and any other relevant infornfation,

such as the timep date, and location of the video's creaéon.

(2) Defendants shall produce an affidavit from Captain Haley stating whether

any of the interdews he conducted with PlaintiF were not recorded and,

if not, explaining why any interview was not recorded.

(3) Defehdants shall produce any written reports prepared by the oo cers in

attendance at the execution of the search warrant. lf any officers did not


prepare a written reporq Defendants have agreed to provide an affidavit

stating which ofscers did not prepare reports. If any oG cers were not

wearing a body cam era at the time of the exeouéon of the warrant,

Defendants will include this fact in the am davit and state which officers

had no cameras.

The defendants to date still have not satisfied or fulfillèd the Honorable Judge

Ballou's order fled on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No. 90).

Both of these defendants video data evidence is extemely relevant to the Plainéffcase. These two defendants also testifed against the Plaintiffdllring his oriminalproceedings in the City of Danville Circuit Court and both withheld theirexctllpatory evidence from the Plaintx and are continuing withholdingdiscoverable information in this Court's proceedings also.

The defendants have provided many Discovery Letters after the Honorable Judge

Ballou's Order on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No. 90). giving the court amisleading perception that defend> ts have satisfied the court order to compel.

Pursuant to the Honorable Judgi Ballou's Order on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dk4. No.90) the Plaintiffrespectively asks tha! the court makes the defendants provide tlzevideo data to the Plaintiff from Officer L.D. Land apd Officer D. C. Lancaster

Cam eras.

In lieu of the defendant failtlre to obey the Order on M o:on to Compel frbm

Honorable Judge Ballou's Order on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dld. No. 90) the Plaintiffmust for the record object to the Order on Motion to Compel filed on Jtme 22,2016 (See: Dkt. No. 107).

The Ple tiffrespectively ask that the cotlrt to reconsider its opinion that thedefendants have satisfied a11 of their Discovery obligation to the PlaintiF in lightof the fact that the defendants Officer L.D. Land and Offcer D. C. Lancaster to


date have not fulfilled their obligation and saésfying the Courfs order entered in on

May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No. 90). This deliberate delay by the defendants ism eant to place the Plaintiffat a signifcant disadvr tage at trial. By attempting toconénue to withhold discoverable evidence from the Plaintiffrefening to OffcerL. D. Land's and Officer D. C. Lancaster's video data that exists within the

database at the City of Danville Police Depnrtment.

Any and all video data from the defendants Officer L. D. Land's and Offcer D . C.Lancaster is higMy relevant to the Plaintil s case and may be used for

impeachm ent pum oses.

If the Plaintiff is m ade to plead his case without this critical èvidence 9om thesetwo defendants. The PlaintiF respectively asks that this is noted for the record that

the Plaintiff has been forced to plead his case without critical discoverableinformaéon withheld 9om the Plainéffby the defendants as of the filing of this

letter responding to the Discovery letter 9om the defendants dated Jtme 22nd>2016.

The Ple tiffrespectively asks this Honorable court for sanctions (See: Dkt. No.80) against the defendants Officer L. D. Land and Offcer D. C. Lancaster for notobeying the Honorable Judge Ballou's Order on May lothm 2016 (See: Dld. No.90). The part of the order that these defendants have not obeyed reads as follow:

(l) Defendants shall produce a digital log of the history of the videos as well

as relevant m etadata for each video that may indicate the identity of the

officer who was wearing the camera and any other relevant infonnation,

such as the time, date, and location of the video's creation.

The Ple tiffrespectively asks tltis Honorable court to schedule an evidentiaryhearing before trial.

4


X

Alvin L. Sutherlin, Jr. (Pro Se)

505 Jefferson Street, 1't Floor>

Danville, Vir/nia 24541-2037

434-728-2673 (Ce11 phone)

[email protected]

lhereby certify that the foregoing notice of thehand delivered, this 24th, day of June 2016 to

lawsuit was sent by regular mail, postal paid orClerk of Court of The United States District Court

For W estem Distrid of Virginia Danville Division and I also hereby certify that I have mailed orhand delivered a copy of the foregoing to the oflice of Daniel, M edley & Kirby, P.C, 110 NorthUnion Street P. 0. Box 720, Danville, VA 24543-0720

. a tE-x œmmon touwof

. . s a stj j , yys js (uy

, . w' janu an: ofjaa seaj.

Ntlryptlbllc

b eo- ' X -'. Renee Lawson Berg

er tpddKurexphtionda abcve). . t . . x

v ' ( w% ', xotary publz. #,4- t' jj commonweajth of virginiatz, v .j1) , ' Reg, vyssszaaQ

' . M commlssbn h pz, Jjyq, a;j p;y yY

5
