ORDER

CHARLES S. MILLER, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

This action arises out of injuries sustained by plaintiff when shot by a Dickinson police officer responding to a 911 call in the early morning hours on July 8, 2008. Plaintiff served a subpoena duces tecum on the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation ("BCI"), a nonparty, commanding it to produce:

(Docket No. 119-1). BCI subsequently produced 7 DVDs and 8 CDs for inspection and copying by plaintiff's representative.

Adamant that the materials produced by BCI did not include the recordings he had subpoenaed, plaintiff filed a motion on March 25, 2015, to compel BCI to (1) produce the requested DVDs and VHS tapes, and (2) reimburse him for the costs he incurred when copying the 7 DVDs and 8 CDs it had provided.

BCI made a special appearance and filed a response in opposition to plaintiff's motion on April 8, 2014. It asserted that it had produced everything in its possession that related to Case No. #08-K-581. It further explained that it had produced everything in its possession relating to Case No. #08-K-581 out of an abundance of caution as it had difficulty discerning exactly what plaintiff was requesting.

On April 9, 2014, the court issued an order denying plaintiff's motion. On April 22, 2014, plaintiff filed an "Objection and Motion for Hearing," to which he attached a document captioned "Evidence Inventory and Receipt" (hereinafter referred to as "the Inventory") along with a listing of materials he obtained from BCI in response to the subpoena. He asked the court to reconsider its order denying his motion to compel and convene a hearing on this matter. In so doing he reasserted that BCI had failed produce the subpoenaed recordings, namely, the DVDs and VHS tapes identified as Items 1-4 on the Inventory.

At the court's directive, plaintiff submitted for in camera review the copies he made of the DVDs and CDs produced by BCI. These DVDs and CDs contain: videotaped statements made by defendants to investigators shortly after the shooting; copies of all 911 and radio traffic pertaining to this incident; daylight photographs of the crime scene; photographs of plaintiff's personal items (clothing, boots, baseball cap, glasses, etc.) along with ammunition both spent and unused found at the scene and/or on plaintiff's person; an audio recording of an interview with plaintiff; and a copy of BCI's case file.1 They do not contain any recordings from any patrol vehicle cameras.

The court, having now reviewed the DVDs and CDs in camera, finds no basis for reconsidering its previous order denying plaintiff's Motion to Compel and convening a hearing on this matter. Based upon the Inventory, it would appear that the patrol vehicles driven to the scene by defendants on June 8, 2008, were equipped with cameras. However, there is nothing in any of materials produce by BCI to to suggest that the cameras were activated and recorded events leading up to and including the shooting on June 8, 2008. Rather, the materials cast doubt on the existence of any such recordings of the shooting. According to statements made by defendants shortly after the shooting and later to investigators, they dimmed the lights on their patrol vehicles as they approached the residence where the shooting occurred, parked their vehicles behind some trees adjacent to the residence and/or on the street away from the residence, and approached the residence on foot. Given the location of the vehicles in relationship to the residence, the likelihood that the vehicles were in a position to capture anything (assuming that the cameras in the vehicles had been activated) appears beyond remote.

BCI maintains that it has provided plaintiff everything in its possession relating to Case No. #08-K-581. BCI cannot produce recordings its does not have. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 123) is therefore DENIED.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.