United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge
before the Court are several discovery related motions filed
by plaintiff Steven Curry. Each will be addressed in turn.
Curry filed a "Motion for Order Compelling Disclosure or
Discovery." (Doc. 118). In the motion Curry seeks the
production of various IDOC records. Neither party submitted
the actual requests for production or defendants'
responses thereto, but the defendants' filed a response
in opposition (Doc. 129) and so the Court will proceed to the
merits of the motion. On a related note, Curry's
discovery requests appear to blur the line between
interrogatories and requests for production. The Court will
construe the discovery requests as requests for production,
and Curry will be directed to resubmit the discovery request
if it is drafted as an interrogatory.
¶ 9, Curry seeks the institutional directives that
concern the monitoring of inmates categorized as black
stripers. The defendants shall produce such records so long
as the records do not threaten institutional safety.
¶ 10, Curry seeks the IDOC protective custody
regulations. The defendants shall either produce the records,
or contact the Menard law library and ensure that the records
are available to plaintiff.
¶ 11, Curry requests “plaintiff living unit [sic]
since being in Menard Correctional Center.” To the
extent such a document exists, the defendants shall produce
it. If such a document does not exist, Curry may submit the
request in the form of an interrogatory.
¶ 12, Curry seeks “any video footage that can be
saved on the following dates June 7, 2016, June 9, 2016, June
10, 2016 in North 2 segregation unit.” If such
surveillance footage exists, the defendants are ordered to
preserve it. The Court will entertain suggestions as to how
the footage may be viewed by Curry.
¶ 13, Curry asks the defendants to identify and provide
supporting documentation as to the confidential informants
that were used in issuing him the disciplinary reports. Due
to institutional security reasons, the defendants'
objections are sustained.
¶ 14, Curry seeks photographs of the multipurpose
building washroom, camera locations, and the locations of
correctional officers' stations. Due to institutional
security reasons, the defendants' objections are
¶¶ 15 through 21, Curry requests “any and all
grievance and internal investigation files” regarding
defendants Butler, Brooks, Bump, Brookman, Gee, Spiller and
Anthony. The Court agrees with the defendants in that the
requests are overbroad and that the documents, if they exist,
would be of little probative value. The defendants'
objections are sustained.
¶ 22, Curry asks for all incident reports that occurred
in the Menard gym from January 14, 2015, until March 5, 2017,
that dealt with inmate assaults or Security Threat Group
activity. This request is overbroad, of questionable
relevance, and will likely implicate potential security
issues. Defendants' objections are sustained.
¶ 23, Curry seeks “descriptions and duty's
[sic] of internal affairs [series of numbers].” It is
not clear what plaintiff is requesting, but the request is
worded more so as an interrogatory than a request for
production. The defendants are not obligated to respond to
the request, but Curry is free to resubmit the request as an
¶ 24, Curry seeks his “disciplinary ticket history
since being in IDOC.” If the defendants maintain a
disciplinary report summary sheet, they shall produce it.
Otherwise, the defendants shall produce all of Curry's
disciplinary reports since his arrival at Menard.
defendants shall supplement their responses in accordance
with this ...