Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03035/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03035-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Ray Brown
Plaintiff
Jason Day
Defendant
Danny Hickman
Defendant
Jason Phifer
Defendant
Jason Silva
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

DANIEL RAY BROWN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-3035

 

DANNY HICKMAN, Sheriff, Boone

County, Arkansas; JASON DAY, Jail

Administrator, Boone County Detention

Center; JASON SILVA, Boone County

Detention Center; and JASON PHIFER,

Boone County Detention Center DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On April 5, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to issue an order

compelling discovery responses from the defendants (Doc. 29). Plaintiff indicates he mailed

defendants his motion for production of documents on January 30, 2007, and received

defendants’ responses on March 23, 2007. Plaintiff contends the responses are unsatisfactory.

In particular, plaintiff contends defendants failed to produce the following: a copy of the jail

rules; a copy of the jail maintenance logs from 4/29/2006, through 11/14/2006; copies of jail

incident logs regarding the use of spray and tasers involving inmates other than the plaintiff dated

from 4/29/2006, through 11/14/2006; and Jason Phifer’s work jacket/folder containing

disciplinary action taken and any reprimands and/or suspensions.

Defendants responded to the motion (Doc. 30). They state they received interrogatories,

requests for production of documents and requests for admission from the plaintiff on February

5, 2007. On March 6, 2007, defendants indicate they forwarded their discovery responses to the

plaintiff. On April 16, 2007, defendants state they supplemented their responses. Defendants

maintain the plaintiff’s motion to compel is moot. 

Case 3:06-cv-03035-JLH Document 32 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

The supplement discovery responses included a copy of the jail rules, the requested

incident reports, and a copy of Phifer’s work jacket/folder. With respect to the maintenance logs,

defendants have indicated it does not maintain a “maintenance log.” The court cannot make the

defendants produce what does not exist. It appears from defendants’ response that the

defendants have now produced all other information responsive to plaintiff’s requests.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s request for a court order (Doc. 29) or motion to compel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of May 2007

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03035-JLH Document 32 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>