The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERIE DIVISION
JOHN BUTLER, ) Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-289-CBB-SPB
)
)
Plaintiff, ) United States District Judge
) Susan Paradise Baxter
vs. )
) United States Magistrate Judge
CAPTAIN FLOYD, LIEUTENANT ) Christopher B. Brown
STAFFORD, JAMES BARNACLE, F. )
)
NUNEZ, C.O. BOYCE #1, C.O. )
BOYCE #2, C.O. HAFELI, C.O. )
QUINN, C.O. PLACE, C.O. STOKES, )
)
SUED IN INDIVIDUAL AND )
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, )
)
)
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER ON ECF Nos. 50, 59
I. Introduction
Plaintiff John Butler (“Butler”) brings this pro se civil action and alleges
various Pennsylvania Department of Corrections officials violated his civil rights at
SCI-Albion, culminating in his involuntary transfer to SCI-Houtzdale. Butler
alleges certain Defendants engaged in various acts of intimidation and retaliation
against him for filing grievances and lawsuits by falsely implicating him as the
organizer of a hunger strike at SCI-Albion.1 ECF No. 10 at ¶¶ 26-34. Separately,
1 This matter was originally referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Richard A.
Lanzillo for pretrial proceedings, in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)
and Local Civil Rule 72. On October 25, 2025, the case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to
Administrative Order 2024-12. Pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Act, as Butler’s Motion to
Compel and Motion for Sanctions (ECF Nos. 50, 59) are non-dispositive, the undersigned is issuing a
Butler alleges he was denied appropriate medical care after experiencing chest
pains. Id. at ¶¶ 4, 8-11.
Presently pending are Butler’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for
Sanctions. ECF Nos. 50, 59. The Motion to Compel2 is fully briefed and the
Motions are ripe for consideration. ECF Nos. 50, 58-60. In his Motion to Compel,
Butler seeks the following:
A. The ability to view the video footage from his misconduct hearings
on August 16 and August 23, 2023 at SCI-Houtzdale, ECF No. 50 at
2;
B. For the Court to conduct an in-camera review of the video footage
from his May 1, 2024 “Restricted Release Hearing,” and the
telephone recordings discussed in the hearing, Id. at 4-5;
C. The ability to view the video footage of Defendant Stafford’s August
23, 2023 interview, Id. at 3;
D. For the Court to conduct an in-camera review of footage of ten other
inmate’s “Restricted Release Hearings” and the telephone
recordings discussed in those hearings, Id. at 4-5.
E. Defendants’ Responses to Butler’s Interrogatories from August 19,
2024, Id. at 1;
F. Documentation related to an “abuse grievance” from on or after
August 1, 2023, Id. at 2;
For the reasons that follow, Butler’s Motion to compel video footage of the
misconduct hearings, “Restricted Release Hearings,” and Defendant Stafford’s
interview are denied as MOOT, and the remaining requests are DENIED. Butler’s
Motion for Sanctions is likewise DENIED.
Memorandum Order rather than a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge. See §
636(b)(1).
2 The Court did not request additional briefing regarding Butler’s Motion for Sanctions.
II. Procedural Background
Butler initiated this action on October 16, 2023. ECF No. 1. After his Motion
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was granted, his Complaint was docketed.
ECF Nos. 9, 10. Defendants did not file a Motion to Dismiss, and the case
proceeded to discovery.
Butler previously brought a Motion to Compel Production of Discovery
Material. ECF No. 31. Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo held a Telephonic Status
Conference on August 13, 2024 to discuss Butler’s Motion, and issued an Order the
same day. See ECF Nos. 34-35. Butler appealed Judge Lanzillo’s Order on his
Motion to Compel to United States District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter. ECF
Nos. 42, 47. Judge Baxter issued a Memorandum Order denying his appeal,
overruling his objections, and affirming Judge Lanzillo’s Order. ECF No. 61.
This case was transferred to the undersigned pursuant to Administrative
Order 2024-12 while Butler’s appeal to Judge Baxter was still pending. After the
case was transferred, Butler filed the current Motion to Compel (ECF No. 50) and
Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 59). Defendants responded to Butler’s Motion to
Compel (ECF No. 58), and Butler filed a Reply (ECF No. 60).3
3 Also pending is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 51. That too is fully
briefed. ECF Nos. 51-54; 68-70; 72. A separate Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment is being issued concurrently with this Memorandum Order.
III. Legal Standards
a. Motion to Compel
The general framework for determining the scope of allowable discovery for
cases in federal courts is provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), which
provides as follows.
(b) Discovery Scope and Limits.
(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order,
the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
actin, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible
in evidence to be discoverable.
(2) Limitations on Frequency and Extent.
(A) When permitted. By order, the court may alter the limits in
these rules on the number of depositions and interrogatories or
on the length of depositions under Rule 30. By order or local
rule, the court may also limit the number of requests under Rule
36.
(B) Specific Limitations on Electronically Stored Information. A
party need not provide discovery of electronically stored
information from sources that the party identifies as not
reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On
motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party
from whom discovery is sought must show that the information
is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If
that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery
from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause,
considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may
specify conditions for the discovery.
(C) When required. On motion or on its own, the court must limit
the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these
rules or by local rule if it determines that:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source
that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive;
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample
opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the
action; or
(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the
case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources,
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and
the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b).
Generally, courts afford considerable latitude in discovery to ensure that
litigation proceeds with “the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before
trial.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501. The polestar of discovery is relevance,
which, for discovery purposes, is interpreted broadly. All relevant material is
discoverable unless an applicable evidentiary privilege is asserted. Pearson v.
Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir. 2000). When there is no doubt about relevance, a
court should tend toward permitting discovery. Heat and Control, Inc. v. Hester
Industries, Inc., 785 F.2d 1017, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Deitchman v. E.R.
Squibb & Sons, Inc., 740 F.2d 556, at 556 (7th Cir. 1984)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 requires a party served with a document
request either produce the requested documents or state a specific objection for each
item or category objected to. The burden is upon the party objecting to discovery to
state the grounds for the objection with specificity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2); Momah v.
Albert Einstein Medical Center, 164 F.R.D. 412, 417 (E.D. Pa. 1996). “Mere
recitation of the familiar litany that an interrogatory or a document production
request is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive and irrelevant will not suffice.” Id.
(quoting Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982)). The objecting
party must demonstrate in specific terms why a particular discovery request does
not fall within the broad scope of discovery or is otherwise privileged or improper.
Goodman v. Wagner, 553 F. Supp. 255, 258 (E.D. Pa. 1982). The party attempting
to withhold the release of relevant material for privilege must also “describe the
nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or
disclosed . . . in a manner that . . . will enable other parties to assess the claim.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). Once an objection has been properly articulated, the
burden rests with the party seeking discovery to show that a discovery request lies
within the bounds of Rule 26. Momah, 164 F.R.D. at 417. Then, the party opposing
discovery must convince the court why discovery should not be had. Id. (citing
Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 138 F.R.D. 115, 118–19 (N.D. Ind. 1991)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 also allows a party who has received
evasive or incomplete discovery responses to seek a court order compelling
additional disclosure. “The party seeking the order to compel must demonstrate the
relevance of the information sought. The burden then shifts to the opposing party,
who must demonstrate in specific terms why a discovery request does not fall within
the broad scope of discovery.” Option One Mortgage Corp. v. Fitzgerald, Civil No.
3:07-1877, 2009 WL 648986 at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar.11, 2009).
b. Motion for Sanctions
Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for sanctions.
The scope of what type of discovery may be compelled under Rule 37, and give rise
to sanctions, is defined, in turn, by Rule 26(b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which provides as follows:
(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the
scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding
any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the
parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within the scope of discovery
need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
A party moving under Rule 37 to compel discovery, or for sanctions, bears the
initial burden of proving the relevance of the requested information. Morrison v.
Philadelphia Housing Auth., 203 F.R.D. 195, 196 (E.D. Pa. 2001). If the movant
meets this initial burden, then the burden shifts to the person resisting discovery to
establish that discovery of the material requested is inappropriate. Momah v.
Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 164 F.R.D. 412, 417 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (citation omitted).
The person resisting discovery must explain with specificity why discovery is
inappropriate; the boilerplate litany that the discovery sought is overly broad,
burdensome, oppressive, vague, or irrelevant is insufficient. See Josephs v. Harris
Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 991-92 (3d Cir. 1982).
IV. Discussion
Butler moves to compel the production of video footage and documents (ECF
No. 50), as well as for sanctions against the Defendants. ECF No. 59. These
motions are addressed in turn.
a. Motion to Compel
i. Motion to Compel Video Footage
Butler moves to compel production of three sets of video footage. These
requests are repetitive and have already been addressed and denied by the Court.
Butler moves:
(1) to compel the video footage from his August 16 and August 23, 2023
misconduct hearings;
(2) for the Court to conduct an in-camera review of the video footage
from his May 1, 2024 “Restricted Release Hearing” and supporting
telephone recordings; and
(3) to compel Video Footage of Defendant Stafford’s August 23, 2023
interview with Defendant Nunez.
ECF No. 50 at 3-5.
These requests were previously denied by the Court. Chief Magistrate Judge
Lanzillo denied Butler’s requests for the video footage from the Misconduct
Hearings and the Restricted Release hearing. ECF No. 35 at ¶ 4. Judge Lanzillo
also functionally denied Butler’s request for video footage of Defendant Stafford’s
interview, as he raised it during the Parties’ August 13, 2024 Telephonic Status
Conference and Judge Lanzillo chose not to issue a formal ruling on it. Id. See also
ECF No. 61 at 4 (describing this as a “functional[] deni[al]”).
After Butler objected and appealed, ECF Nos. 42, 47, United States District
Judge Baxter denied his appeal, overruled his objections, and affirmed Judge
Lanzillo’s Order. ECF No. 61 at 3-4. Judge Baxter likewise denied his appeal and
overruled his objections as to the footage of Defendant Stafford’s interview, holding
that “this Court cannot say that Judge Lanzillo’s denial was clearly erroneous,
contrary to law, or an abuse of Judge Lanzillo’s broad discretion to decide discovery-
related matters.” Id. at 4.
As these requests are repetitive and were previously addressed, they are
denied as MOOT.
ii. Video Footage from Ten Inmate’s Restricted
Release Hearings and Telephone Recordings
Butler next moves for the Court to conduct an in-camera review of footage of
ten other inmates’ “Restricted Release Hearings” and the telephone recordings that
were discussed in those hearings. ECF No. 50 at 4-5. He argues this is relevant
because “if those ten inmates stated that the Plaintiff was the organizer, they are
‘witnesses’ and those hearings are admissible evidence.” Id. at 5. He further
alleges the telephone recordings that occurred prior to the hunger strike were part
of the investigation of him and occurred prior to when he filed his lawsuit so they
are in the relevant time period. Id. This request mirrors Butler’s request for the
Court to conduct an in-camera review of the footage and telephone recordings of his
own Restricted Release Hearing, discussed supra, which was previously denied by
Judge Lanzillo and Judge Baxter.
The Court declines to conduct an in-camera review of these video and
telephone recordings. In his Complaint, Plaintiff bases his retaliation claim on an
August 2023 misconduct and subsequent misconduct hearing. See ECF No. 10 at
¶¶ 26-27, 31-32. In his current request, Plaintiff seeks additional information from
other inmates that was used in his “Restricted Release Hearing” on May 1, 2024.
ECF No. 50 at 4-5. Even if some of the recordings were made prior to the hunger
strike, Plaintiff alleges they were used as evidence in his hearing on May 1, 2024.
It is not clear to the Court how these recordings with other inmates, which allegedly
were used in a hearing that took place nearly eight months after the events in the
Complaint, are relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations of retaliation related to a
misconduct and hearing in August 2023. See Kannikal v. Whitaker, No. 3:12-CV-
220, 2018 WL 6079509, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2018) (finding irrelevant
documents are “beyond the appropriate scope of discovery”). Accordingly, Plaintiff
has failed to establish how these are relevant to his retaliation claim, so review by
the Court would serve no purpose.
Moreover, such a request is unduly burdensome on the Court. See Mearin v.
Folino, No. CIV.A. 11-571, 2012 WL 4378184, at *7 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2012)
(denying request for Court to conduct in-camera review of documents plaintiff is
seeking, as it is unduly burdensome and plaintiff did not establish relevance). See
also Dale v. Deutsche Telekom AG, No. 22 C 3189, 2024 WL 4416761, at *3 (N.D. Ill.
Oct. 4, 2024) (describing in-camera review by the Court as “time-consuming and
burdensome”); Landreth v. Lehil, No. 2:20-CV-00472-DMC-P, 2023 WL 2480644, at
*16 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2023) (denying request for in camera review by the Court
because “[i]n camera reviews, which are burdensome and intrusive . . . are not
routinely conducted”). Accordingly, this request is DENIED.
iii. Defendants’ Responses to Butler’s Interrogatories
from August 19, 2024
Butler next moves to compel Defendants’ Responses to his Interrogatories
from August 19, 2024. ECF No. 50 at 1. Defendants respond that they did not
receive interrogatories from Butler dated August 19, 2024. ECF No. 58 at 2, n.1.
Per Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo’s Case Management Order, discovery
closed on August 15, 2024. ECF No. 26. Butler was reminded of this deadline
multiple times, including on May 31, 2024 (ECF No. 26), July 3, 2024 (ECF No. 30),
and August 13, 2024. ECF No. 35. On August 13, 2024, Chief Magistrate Judge
Lanzillo extended discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Butler to view new
information provided by Defendants but did not permit Butler to serve additional
discovery requests. ECF No. 35. Butler states these discovery requests were dated
August 19, 2024, or four days after the close of discovery.4
4 In his Reply, Butler says he referenced these Interrogatory Requests during the August 13,
2024 Telephonic Status Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo, as the Case
Management Order stated he “may not serve requests for discovery upon Defendant(s) without first
providing a copy of the requests to the Court for review and approval.” ECF No. 60 (citing ECF No.
26). However, Butler does not state he was late serving these discovery requests because he was
waiting for the Court’s approval, nor are these interrogatories referenced in the Transcript from the
August 13, 2024 hearing, the Court’s Minute Entry or the Court’s Order memorializing the
conference. ECF Nos. 34, 35, 43.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) allows district courts to grant
additional time for discovery if the party opposing summary judgment shows that
he “cannot present facts essential to justify [his] opposition” to the motion. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(d). To show that additional discovery is needed, the party must state: (1)
that he needs additional discovery; (2) what material facts he hopes to uncover
through additional discovery; and (3) why he has not obtained the information
sought through previous discovery requests. See Dinnerstein v. Burlington Cnty.
College, 764 F. App'x 214, 217 n.1 (3d Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (citing Radich v.
Goode, 886 F.2d 1391, 1393–94 (3d Cir. 1989)).
The Court will DENY Butler’s Motion to Compel Defendants’ Responses to
his August 19, 2024 Interrogatories. The discovery deadline expired on August 15,
2024, and Butler has not explained why he failed to submit this discovery prior to
that deadline. Defendants also state they never received the interrogatories. ECF
No. 58 at 2, n.1. By making only a passing reference to these interrogatories in his
Motion to Compel, Butler has not stated what material facts he hopes to uncover
through these requests. As such, he has failed to make a sufficient showing that
this additional discovery is needed. Dinnerstein, 764 F. App’x at 217 n.1.
iv. Documentation related to “abuse grievances” from
on or after August 1, 2023
Butler next moves to compel documentation related to “abuse grievances” he
filed on or around August 1, 2023. ECF No. 50 at 2. In his Motion to Compel,
Butler argues Defense Counsel represented in the August 13, 2024 Status
Conference before Judge Lanzillo that Defendants had copies of the grievances, and
that Judge Lanzillo ordered them to submit a report detailing why Defendants did
not respond to Plaintiff’s grievances. ECF No. 50 at 2.
Judge Lanzillo ordered the Defendants to produce the abuse grievances “to
the extent such documents exist and are in [Defendants’] possession, custody or
control.” See ECF No. 35 at ¶ 1. The Court further ordered the Defendants “to the
extent they are able, are to confirm receipt of the grievance and/or complaint and to
produce all documents related to any grievance the Plaintiff filed or attempted to
file concerning his abuse complaint.” Id. Judge Lanzillo further noted “Butler
acknowledged possession of a copy of both of the requested documents.” Id.
In their Response to Butler’s Motion, Defendants state Defense Counsel did
not represent during the Status Conference that he had copies of the abuse
grievances. ECF No. 58 at n.1. Defendants further respond they previously
produced a full report of Plaintiff’s grievance history which did not include any
grievances related to allegations of abuse from that time period. Id. at ¶ 7.
Defendants further state they checked with SCI-Albion, SCI-Houtzdale, the Central
Office for the Department of Corrections, and the Bureau of Investigation and
Intelligence, and none of those entities had copies of those grievances. Id. at ¶ 8.
Defendants cannot be ordered to produce something that is not in their
possession, custody, or control. Accordingly, Butler’s request to compel the
grievances and/or a report related to grievances is DENIED.
The Court further notes that – as Judge Lanzillo said in the Telephonic
Conference and reiterated in his prior Order – there is no prejudice to Butler as he
confirmed he has copies of these grievances. ECF No. 43 at 9:23-10:1; ECF No. 35
at ¶ 1. He was free to submit those copies of those grievances as evidence in
support of his Opposition Brief to Defendants’ pending Motion for Summary
Judgment, and did so.
b. Butler’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 59)
Lastly, Butler moves to impose $500 of sanctions against the Defendants.
ECF No. 59. He argues he is entitled to sanctions as Defendants failed to respond
to his Interrogatories, failed to provide him “all video and audio recordings, and
documents,” and failed to respond to Court Orders. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5, 16.
As explained above, however, Butler is not entitled to any of the further
discovery he seeks, so there is no basis for imposing sanctions. See In re Philips
Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level Pap, & Mech. Ventilator Prods., No. MC 21-1230, 2024 WL
869109, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 29, 2024) (denying motion for sanctions related to
discovery as plaintiff “is not entitled to the discovery he seeks”); Rosario v.
Westmoreland Cnty., PA, No. 21-CV-208, 2022 WL 22687747, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov.
10, 2022) (same).
Accordingly, his Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Butler’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 50) video
footage of the misconduct hearings, “Restricted Release Hearings,” and Defendant
Stafford’s interview are denied as MOOT, and the remaining requests are DENIED.
Butler’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 59) is likewise DENIED.
DATED this 14th day of May, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/Christopher B. Brown
United States Magistrate Judge
CC: Hon. Susan Paradise Baxter
United States District Judge
JOHN BUTLER
BX1555
SCI MAHANOY
301 Grey Line Drive
Frackville, PA 17931
All counsel of record, via ECF