IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

DANVILLE DIVISION

ALVIN L. SUTHERLIN, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.: 4:15cv37

)

v. )

)

LIEUTENANT J. W. SMITH, et al., ) By: Hon. Robert S. Ballou

) United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 80) and his

amended motion to compel. Dkt. No. 84. During a telephonic hearing held on May 2, 2016, the

court heard argument on the motion to compel. At the heart of Plaintiff’s motion to compel is his

contention that Defendants have not produced all of the video footage and accompanying

information he has requested and the court has ordered Defendants to provide. Specifically,

Plaintiff argues that Defendants have only made available incomplete copies of the videos he

requested and that he has not received video footage for Officers Slover, Lancaster, or Land.

Dkt. No. 85. Plaintiff also states that he has not received important metadata that correlates to the

video files or any “audit logs” that he believes would track any changes to the video files

Defendants possess. Defendants contend that they have complied with the court’s order (Dkt.

No. 68) and that they have produced all responsive documents and videos in the possession of

the Danville Police Department has provided in response to the subpoena and order.

After discussing these issues with Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel, and in part with

Defendants’ counsel’s consent, the motion to compel is GRANTED in part and it is hereby

ORDRED that:

Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 90 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 3 Pageid#: 1336

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

metadata for each video that may indicate the identity of the officer who was wearing the

camera and any other relevant information, such as the time, date, and location of the

video’s creation.

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

interviews he conducted with Plaintiff were not recorded and, if not, explaining why any

interview was not recorded.

(3) Defendants shall produce any written reports prepared by the officers in attendance at the

execution of the search warrant. If any officers did not prepare a written report,

Defendants have agreed to provide an affidavit stating which officers did not prepare

reports. If any officers were not wearing a body camera at the time of the execution of the

warrant, Defendants will include this fact in the affidavit and state which officers had no

cameras.

(4) Plaintiff may re-issue his subpoena to Taser, International. This new subpoena shall be

limited in scope to the date and time of the execution of the warrant and to the named

defendant officers who were present during the search of Plaintiff’s residence. Plaintiff

shall not include any request for any video footage from Captain Haley in this subpoena.

Defendants are to comply with the terms of this order within 21 days of the date of this order.

Any other relief requested in Plaintiff’s motions to compel is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff at his address of

record.

It is so ORDERED.

Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 90 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 3 Pageid#: 1337

Entered: May 5, 2016

Robert S. Ballou Robert S. Ballou

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 90 Filed 05/10/16 Page 3 of 3 Pageid#: 1338