WILLIAM G. COBB, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is Defendant's Notice of Compliance with Court Order (#168) to which is attached Defendant Jaeger's Second Supplemental Discovery Responses. (Docs. # 178, # 178-1
The court addressed multiple discovery disputes then pending between Plaintiff and Defendant on May 22, 2015. (See, Minutes of Proceedings, Doc. # 168.) Defendant Jaeger was directed to supplement certain discovery responses and has done so in Docs. ## 177, 178 and 178-1.
One of the supplemented discovery responses was Request for Admission (RFA) # 14, which Plaintiff states he accepts. (Docs. ## 178-1 at 3 and 182 at 1.) It is therefore not the subject of this Order.
Plaintiff, however, disputes the adequacy of the supplemental responses to Requests for Production (RFPs) 4 (training documents), and RFPs 2 and 6 (documents pertaining to Defendant's status as an Nevada Department of Corrections "shift supervisor"). (Doc. # 182 at 2-7.) This issue was also addressed in Docs. ## 177 and 185.
The court will first address RFP No. 4 (training documents) and will thereafter turn to a discussion of RFP Nos. 2 and 6 which pertain to Defendant Jaeger's status as a "shift supervisor."
Defendant's second supplemental response to RFP # 4 appears as follows:
Doc. # 178-1 at 4.
Plaintiff contends as to the supplemental response to Request #4 that Defendant's counsel initially "conceded there were no such document amongst the document he submitted to the institution's warden's office for Plaintiff to review." As such, Plaintiff requests an order of the court producing a transcript to prove the "concession." (Doc. # 182 at 2.) The issue of the training documents is also discussed by Plaintiff in his Reply logged in the Docket as Doc. # 185. Plaintiff again contends in # 185 that at the hearing Defendant's counsel "conceded that there were (sic) no information in the documents that verified he was properly trained in regards to the grievance procedure." Plaintiff submits that "in the interest of justice," the court should "obtain a copy of those training documents to settle the dispute the Defendant has created." Id., at 2.
The court finds that a transcript is unnecessary relative to this specific request for production. The request for production asks Defendant to produce documents stating that he (Jaeger) was properly trained. The supplemental response indicates that Defendant Jaeger is no longer asserting a qualified privilege for official information relative to his training documents and that "the documents in Request No. 4 have been provided to the Warden's office for review." (Doc. # 178-1 at 4.) Whether Defendant's counsel suggested or ever represented that there are no training documents is essentially irrelevant. Additionally, the court would note that no support for Plaintiff's "concession" argument appears in the Minutes of the May 22, 2015 hearing. (Doc # 168 at 5.)
The court also fails to understand Plaintiff's continued objection that the Defendant did not produce those documents which would reflect he was "properly trained." The Defendant has made available to Plaintiff for inspection his (Jaeger's) training documents, and as such, any further production by Defendant Jaeger in this matter relative to his "training documents" (emphasis added) would be governed by those already made available for inspection. Therefore, the court finds that Defendant has in fact answered this request "in writing" and any transcript relative to this discovery is unnecessary. Accordingly, the court finds RFP No. 4 has been adequately responded to in the supplemental response (Doc. # 178-1 at 2) and therefore no transcript of the hearing is necessary.
Doc. # 178-1 at 3-7.
The underlying dispute relative to these documents and as outlined in Plaintiff's reply memorandum is that while the log which Defendant has produced (Doc. # 178-1 at 7, NDOC 0219) identifies Defendant Jaeger as "Segregation Sergeant," Plaintiff's contention is that no document reflects Defendant's concomitant status as "Shift Supervisor." (Doc. # 182 at 2-7.) Defendant's response admits that there is no document that labels Defendant Jaeger specifically as "shift supervisor," only as "segregation sergeant." The shift log in fact does not identify Sgt. Jaeger specifically as shift supervisor.
What Defendant offers as an explanation for his authorization to serve as "Shift Supervisor" was that he was the "Segregation Sergeant, meaning he was the supervising sergeant for the segregation unit where Plaintiff was housed on September 30, 2011. Therefore, Defendant was the shift supervisor for the segregation unit and was authorized to answer the emergency grievance." (Doc # 178-1 at 5.)
Despite this explanation, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to produce a document which identifies the Defendant as "shift supervisor" and that "instead Defendant has once again resolved to evasive tactics and is now contending that the Shift Roster doesn't identify a shift supervisor, after originally and accurately stating otherwise." (Doc. # 182 at 6.) Plaintiff argues Defendant appears to be engaging in some type of semantical gymnastics to equate his position as "segregation sergeant" for the shift to also be the supervising sergeant for the segregation unit and, hence, was authorized to answer the emergency grievance because he was the "shift supervisor" for the segregation unit. (Doc. # 178-1.)
The court is concerned that there is no document which would correlate Defendant Jaeger's ability to serve as "shift supervisor" by reason of his capacity as being "segregation sergeant" for the unit. The court's concern arises by reason of NDOC Administrative Regulation 740.10(1) which states that an emergency grievance is to be delivered to the shift supervisor. As discussed above, Defendant asserts his authority to act as a "shift supervisor" (and hence be able to respond to an inmate's emergency grievance under AR 740.10) arises from his status as a "segregation sergeant."
While there very well may be no NDOC administrative regulation or operational procedure document which cloaks a segregation sergeant as being authorized to act as "supervising sergeant for the segregation unit" and hence the "shift supervisor for the segregation unit," Defendant is directed to
It would also serve no purpose to review the training materials when there is no dispositive motion pending for which the Defendant's training file would be relevant.
Doc. # 168 at 1-2.
