United States District Court, W.D. New York
JESSIE J. BARNES, 09-B-2707, Plaintiff,
JOHN ALVES, et al., Defendants
Jessie J. Barnes, Plaintiff, Pro se, Malone, NY.
For Donald McIntosh, B. Potter, Angelo Mastrantonio, Gregory Hungerford, James Marshall, Randy Banks, Courtney Bennett, T. Berg, Carey Bubcaz, Thomas Dinninny, Franklin Raub, Paul Weed, Defendants: Gary M. Levine, LEAD ATTORNEY, New York State Office of the Attorney General, Rochester, NY.
For D. Davis, Peter Mastrantonio, Jr., T. Murley, M. Vandegrift, H. Wetzel, Defendants: Gary M. Levine, New York State Office of the Attorney General, Rochester, NY.
DECISION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge.
This case involves allegations that Defendants violated Plaintiff's civil rights through the unlawful use of excess force in 2001 and 2002. The case has been pending since November 26, 2001. (Diet. 1). Plaintiff is currently proceeding pro se, and the case is scheduled for a bench trial to start on July 28, 2014. (Dkt. 386). Plaintiff is an inmate who is currently housed at the Upstate Correctional Facility in Malone, New York.
Discovery in the action was completed in 2008. (Dkt. 256). Since that time, Plaintiff has filed several motions to compel, and those motions have been denied by the Court. (Dkt. 337, 377). However, Plaintiff recently filed two motions to compel, seeking the production of the complete Inspector General report related to one of the incidents at issue in this litigation. (Dkt. 375, 381). The Court granted Plaintiff's motions, based primarily upon the fact that it appeared that Defendants had never produced the complete report to Plaintiff as part of discovery. (Dkt. 387).
In fact, Defendants initially failed to respond to Plaintiff's motions. (Dkt. 378). When Defendants did respond to the motions, their counsel simply cited to a previously-filed declaration submitted in connection with a prior motion to compel, with no attempt to address Plaintiff's allegations that the complete Inspector General report was never produced as part of discovery. (Dkt. 385). According to Plaintiff, it was that previously-filed declaration that alerted him to the incompleteness of Defendants' production. (Dkt. 375).
Now, Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. 388). In their motion, Defendants do not quarrel with the notion that they should be required to produce the Inspector General report, nor do they dispute that it is relevant to Plaintiff's allegations. Instead, Defendants argue that the Court mistakenly required Defendants to pay for the copying costs
associated with the report. Defendants contend that they should be required to " produce for inspection" the report, but not provide Plaintiff with a copy at no charge. (Dkt. 388-1 at ¶ 3). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is denied.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION STANDARD
Initially, it should be noted that even accepting Defendants' claim that a reasonable copying charge is 25 cents per page, the purported cost of providing a copy of the 100-page report to Plaintiff is twenty-five dollars ($25.00). Under the circumstances, one cannot help but question ...