OPINION AND ORDER
RONALD L. ELLIS, Magistrate Judge.
Pro Se Plaintiff Arrello Barnes ("Barnes") is a New York State prisoner at Sullivan Correctional Facility ("Sullivan") and brings this action for violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against Defendants Brian Fisher, Sueann Smith, Dr. Syed Mahmud, Carla Steinberg-Ross, and Osman Yildiz (collectively known as "Defendants"), employees of the New York State Office of Mental Health unit as Sullivan. Before the Court are Barnes's motions to compel discovery.
For the reasons that follow, his motions are DENIED.
Barnes brought this suit against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because they were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental health needs and provided disparate mental health treatment because he is African-American. Barnes's Eighth Amendment claim was dismissed by District Judge Castel on February 20, 2013. (See Docket No. 51.) In his remaining equal protection claim, Barnes argues that white inmates were sent to an outside hospital for mental illness treatment, while he and other African-American inmates were treated within Sullivan's mental health unit.
On December 31, 2012, Barnes requested the following from Defendants: (1) a "copy of nurse registry and license from all defendants" except for Brian Fischer; (2) "a copy of [his] mental health records, including Defendants' notes, diagnoses, and treatment of Plaintiff"; (3) copies of The New York Stale Department of Corrections ("DOC") Directives 4301 and 4303; (4) DOC Directive 4091 and "Sullivan C/F logbooks dated August 2011 to May 2012; and (5) his suicide reports and DOC Directive 4302. (See Docket No. 44.)
On March 21, 2013, Defendants produced Barnes's Office of Mental Health ("OMH") "mental health records and copies of the SHU Exclusion Law, N.Y. Correction Law §§ 137-401, and N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 45, " which totaled approximately 1, 100 pages of documents. (Def.'s Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to Compel. ("Def.'s Mem.") at 3.) Defendants refused to produce the "nurse registry and license, " Directives 4901, 4301, 4302, and 4303, and the Sullivan C/F log books on grounds of relevance, confidentiality, and vagueness. With respect to Barnes's request for his suicide reports, Defendants maintain that no such records exist. (Def, 's Mem. at 3-4.)
In response, Barnes filed another motion to compel seeking Directives 4901, 4301, and 4303. He also requested the Sullivan logbooks from August 2011 to May 2012. (See Docket No. 64.) Barnes explained that these request were related to his equal protection claim. (Id.) Defendants wrote to the Court explaining that it was reviewing whether it could produce Directives 4901, 4301, and 4303. (Defendants' Letter to the Court dated April 10. 2013.) Defendants also stated that they would consider Barnes's request for the Sullivan logbooks if he narrowed his request to identify the "specific locations from which the log book is sought." Defendants reiterated its objections to Barnes's request for the nurse registry and also argued that the registry was related to his Eighth Amendment claim, which had been dismissed, not to his Fourteenth Amendment claim. ( Id. )
On May 2, 2013, Defendants produced in their entirety Directives 4901 and 4303. Defendants also produced redacted versions of Directive 4301 because DOC determined that unredacted versions would pose a security risk. On May 23, 2013, Barnes filed another motion to compel stating that Directives 4301 and 4303 were so redacted he could not use them as evidence. (See Docket No. 66.) He acknowledged receiving Directives 4901, 4301, and 4303. and specified that he was requesting logbooks from Sullivan's "OBS" and the names of inmates transferred to Marcy Hospital. ( Id. ) On June 13, 2013, Defendants produced additional discovery relating to Barnes's request for logbooks and transfers. In its response. Defendants explained to Barnes that privacy laws and safety concerns prevented it from producing the names of inmates transferred to an outside psychiatric hospital. (Def.'s Mem. at 5.) Defendants did, however, produce "summary statistics of each inmate in the observation cells. broken down by race, as well as a list of every inmate, with name redacted, who was in the observation cells between July 2011 and March 2012." ( Id. ) Lastly, Defendants produced a copy of an OMH directive that discusses observation cell policy.
The issues remaining before the Court are whether Defendants properly redacted Directive 4301, whether Defendants properly redacted the names of inmates who received mental health services, and whether Defendants must produce Barnes's "suicide reports."
A. Redactions To Directive 4301 Were Proper
The scope of discovery is generally limited to any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). "A party asserting a privilege with respect to documents otherwise discoverable bears the burden of justifying the privilege's application." Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div. Of the United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 259 F.R.D. 51, 56 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). "[D]iscovery may not be denied on the basis of an unsubstantiated assertion by counsel that disclosure of requested information might impair facility security." Benitez v. Straley, No. 01 Civ. 181 (CM) (RLE), 2008 WL 4093479, at *2 (quoting Messa v. Woods, No. 07 Civ. 0306 (DNH) (DEP), 2008 WL 2433701, at *2 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. June 12, ...