SUTHERLIN V. SMITH Robert S. Ballou United States Magistrate Judge's Order in Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.

1. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
DANVILLE DIVISION
ALVIN L. SUTHERLIN, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.: 4:15cv37
)
v. )
)
LIEUTENANT J. W. SMITH, et al., ) By: Hon. Robert S. Ballou
) United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants. )
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 80) and his
amended motion to compel. Dkt. No. 84. During a telephonic hearing held on May 2, 2016, the
court heard argument on the motion to compel. At the heart of Plaintiff’s motion to compel is his
contention that Defendants have not produced all of the video footage and accompanying
information he has requested and the court has ordered Defendants to provide. Specifically,
Plaintiff argues that Defendants have only made available incomplete copies of the videos he
requested and that he has not received video footage for Officers Slover, Lancaster, or Land.
Dkt. No. 85. Plaintiff also states that he has not received important metadata that correlates to the
video files or any “audit logs” that he believes would track any changes to the video files
Defendants possess. Defendants contend that they have complied with the court’s order (Dkt.
No. 68) and that they have produced all responsive documents and videos in the possession of
the Danville Police Department has provided in response to the subpoena and order.
After discussing these issues with Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel, and in part with
Defendants’ counsel’s consent, the motion to compel is GRANTED in part and it is hereby
ORDRED that:
Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 90 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 3 Pageid#: 1336

2. (1) Defendants shall produce a digital log of the history of the videos as well as relevant
metadata for each video that may indicate the identity of the officer who was wearing the
camera and any other relevant information, such as the time, date, and location of the
video’s creation.
(2) Defendants shall produce an affidavit from Captain Haley stating whether any of the
interviews he conducted with Plaintiff were not recorded and, if not, explaining why any
interview was not recorded.
(3) Defendants shall produce any written reports prepared by the officers in attendance at the
execution of the search warrant. If any officers did not prepare a written report,
Defendants have agreed to provide an affidavit stating which officers did not prepare
reports. If any officers were not wearing a body camera at the time of the execution of the
warrant, Defendants will include this fact in the affidavit and state which officers had no
cameras.
(4) Plaintiff may re-issue his subpoena to Taser, International. This new subpoena shall be
limited in scope to the date and time of the execution of the warrant and to the named
defendant officers who were present during the search of Plaintiff’s residence. Plaintiff
shall not include any request for any video footage from Captain Haley in this subpoena.
Defendants are to comply with the terms of this order within 21 days of the date of this order.
Any other relief requested in Plaintiff’s motions to compel is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff at his address of
record.
It is so ORDERED.
Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 90 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 3 Pageid#: 1337

3. Entered: May 5, 2016
Robert S. Ballou
Robert S. Ballou
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 90 Filed 05/10/16 Page 3 of 3 Pageid#: 1338