*1 The Court has before it Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 41), in which he requests the Court to compel Defendants to produce certain documents or things responsive to his May 2022 discovery requests. Defendants have filed a response, requesting that the Court deny the motion in its entirety. (ECF No. 44.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Hawn, Ortiz, and Nehf, who are Corrections Officers employed by the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at Ionia Correctional Facility, retaliated against him on various occasions between June 19, 2020, and July 25, 2021, for filing grievances, a PREA complaint, and the instant lawsuit.

Plaintiff's discovery request consists of five requests for production of documents and things (RFP) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. Defendants responded on June 7, 2022.[1] (ECF No. 43-1.)

1. RFP No. 1. In his first request, Plaintiff seeks Defendants’ employee or disciplinary files to show that “they are problematic officers with a long history of staff misconduct, similar and relevant to the instant case.” (ECF No. 43-1 at PageID.277.) Defendants objected on several grounds, including that the documents are irrelevant and hearsay and that the production of prison employee files to a prisoner would present a safety and security risk. (Id. at PageID.277–78.) The Court need not decide whether these objections are valid, as Defendants have provided an affidavit from Tegin Eifert, a Human Resources Analyst with the Michigan Civil Service Commission. Ms. Eifert states that having reviewed Defendants’ disciplinary files, she found no documents in their contents pertaining to wrongdoing against prisoners or reflecting a constitutional violation or retaliation against prisoners or other staff. (ECF No. 44-2 at PageID.292–93.) Thus, through Ms. Eifert's affidavit, Defendants have shown that the requested documents do not exist. A court cannot compel a party to produce a document that does not exist. See Allison v. Mavic, Inc., No. 5:13-CV-180, 2014 WL 12650099, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 30, 2014) (“Simply put, the Court cannot compel Defendant to produce documents or items that it does not have or that do not exist.”). The motion is therefore denied as to this request.

2. RFP No. 2. Plaintiff's second request seeks camera footage for all the “incident dates” at issue in this case, “such as the dates Defendant Hawn deprived the Plaintiff of his food trays, the date Defendant Nehf ‘stole’ the Plaintiff's personal property, the date Defendant Ortiz wrote the Plaintiff a retaliatory misconduct, etc.” (ECF No. 43-1 at PageID.278.) Defendants object to this RFP on the grounds that they lack custody or control over MDOC surveillance footage; allowing a prisoner to view surveillance footage presents safety, custody, and security concerns; and Plaintiff's request is vague because it does not specify the dates and times of the requested video footage. (Id.)

*2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a), a party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce and permit inspection or copying of documents or electronically stored information in the responding party's “possession, custody, or control.” “The concept of custody or control is a broad one: Information is deemed to be within a party's custody or control ‘if the party has actual possession ... or has the legal right to obtain the documents on demand.’ ” McGraw-Hill Global Educ., LLC v. Griffin, No. 5:14-CV-42, 2015 WL 9165965, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 16, 2015) (quoting In re Bankers Trust Co., 61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir. 1995) (emphasis omitted) (citing Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Deloitte & Touche, 145 F.R.D. 108, 110 (D. Colo. 1992); Weck v. Cross, 88 F.R.D. 325, 327 (N.D. Ill. 1980)). Courts have considered the existence of a principal-agent relationship sufficient to satisfy the “possession, custody, or control” requirement. See Craig v. Bridges Bros. Trucking LLC, No. 2:12-cv-954, 2014 WL 3809786, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 1, 2014); Murphy v. Allen Co., No. 5:9-CV-69, 2011 WL 13196155, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2011). And, as to the particular circumstances in this case, “[c]ourts have held that where ... prison officials are sued in their individual capacities but are employed by the department of correction, they have the ability to obtain department of correction documents on demand and ‘control’ them.” Fernandes v. Bouley, No. 20-11612, 2022 WL 2915702, at *5 (D. Mass. July 25, 2022) (citing Sublett v. Henson, No. 5:16-CV-184, 2018 WL 3939333, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 16, 2018), and Mitchell v. Adams, No. Civ S-06-2321, 2009 WL 674348, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2009)). Here, Defendants are represented by the Michigan Attorney General, which has demonstrated access to MDOC documents and materials in many cases before this Court. See Quiroga v. Green, No. 1:11cv989, 2013 WL 6086668, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2013) (“[I]t is this Court's experience that either individual defendants who are employed by CDCR, and/or the Attorney General who represents them, can generally obtain documents from CDCR by requesting them. If this is the case, then, based on their relationship with CDCR, they have constructive control over the requested documents and the documents must be produced.”). The Court finds these cases persuasive and thus overrules Defendants’ objection on this ground.

Defendants’ next raise the standard “safety and security concerns” objection that MDOC defendants often, but not always, raise in response to a discovery request for facility video footage. Rejecting the blanket assertion of a “security risk,” the Sixth Circuit has noted that “videos have been entered into the records of several MDOC prisoners’ excessive-force-claim cases.” Peterson v. Jones, No. 11-1551 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2012), Doc. No. 36-1 at 4 (collecting cases). In Carter v. Mawer, No. 1:11-cv-766 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 1, 2012), ECF No. 24, the MDOC defendant initially objected to producing a surveillance video “on the basis of significant security concerns,” but later agreed to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to review the video footage. Magistrate Judge Scoville also addressed the plaintiff's concern about the court lacking access to the video by ordering the defendant to file a copy of the video. Id. at PageID.223. Here, Defendants’ assertion of a generalized “security risk” is unconvincing. The Court finds the procedure followed in Carter an appropriate procedure for handling any video evidence the Court orders produced.

Defendants’ final objection has some merit. Compliance with Plaintiff's request would require Defendants to scour the amended and supplemental complaint (ECF No. 22) and guess exactly what video Plaintiff seeks. On the other hand, Plaintiff does provide some specific information in his request. First, he seeks video of the dates Defendant Hawn deprived him of his food trays. According to the amended and supplemental complaint, this occurred at breakfast on June 19, 2020, and lunch on December 13 and 20, 2020. (Id. at PageID.198, 200–01.) This information suffices to permit Defendants to determine whether video footage of these incidents exists. Plaintiff next requests video of the date Defendant Nehf “stole” his personal property. Unlike the Hawn incidents, Plaintiff fails to provide specific information about this incident that would permit Defendants or MDOC officials to locate the pertinent video without conducting an unreasonably exhaustive review. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Nehf took his property sometime during a 27-day period. (Id. at 200.) Requiring review of 27 days of video would be unreasonably burdensome, particularly because Plaintiff apparently has witnesses from whom he could have obtained information to narrow the scope of his request. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff requests video from the date Defendant Ortiz wrote the alleged retaliatory misconduct ticket, which the amended complaint alleges was July 25, 2021. (Id. at PageID.202.) However, Plaintiff is not clear about what he wants, for example, video of Ortiz writing the ticket, video of Plaintiff's cell door (to show that the window was not covered), video of Ortiz handing Plaintiff the ticket, or something else. This portion of his request is simply too vague.

*3 Defendants have presented an affidavit from Acting Assistant Deputy Warden Gary Ferguson, who states that only footage from important or critical events is saved and retained for extended periods of time beyond the MDOC's normal retention period, suggesting that the video footage Plaintiff seeks may not exist. (ECF No. 44-4 at PageID.304.) Accordingly, within 14 days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall have Assistant Deputy Warden Ferguson or his designee determine whether video for the Hawn incident dates mentioned above is available. If not, Defendants shall file an affidavit with the Court affirming this fact. If the video is available, Defendants shall arrange for Plaintiff to view the video footage of those incidents and file a copy of the video with the Court within 30 days of this Order.

3. RFP No. 3. This request seeks “[a]ny and all staff e-mails in connection with and/or relevant to the instant case.” (ECF No. 43-1 at PageID.279.) Defendants object to this request on grounds that it is vague and overly broad. The Court agrees. As it is framed, the request would require a search of all MDOC employee email accounts for any email relating to this case, even if its connection is minimal connection to the case. Moreover, the scope of the requested production is not proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Finally, Plaintiff has not offered to narrow the scope of this request in his motion. Accordingly, Defendants’ objection is sustained.

4. RFP No. 4. Plaintiff seeks “[a]ny and all phone recordings in connection with and/or relevant to the instant case, such as the Plaintiff's phone calls on August 19, 2020, etc.” (ECF No. 43-1 at PageID.280.) Defendants object to this request as vague, overbroad, and not proportional to the needs of the case. This objection has merit. With the exception that recorded calls be “in connection with and/or relevant to the instant case,” the request is not limited as to the individual making the phone call or when it was made. As Defendants point out, it could include calls made by other prisoners. Therefore, with one exception, Defendants’ objection is sustained. That is, Plaintiff identifies a call that he made on August 19, 2020. If a recording of the call exists, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff an opportunity to listen to it within 30 days of the date of this Order.

5. RFP No. 5. Plaintiff's final request seeks “[t]he deposition of Defendants Hawn, Nehf, and Ortiz.” (ECF No. 43-1.) Defendants object to this request because Plaintiff is responsible for conducting his own discovery and payment of the associated costs. The objection is sustained. Although Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he must bear the costs of taking a deposition, including paying the fees of the court reporter. See Coates v. Kafczynski, No. 2:05-CV-3, 2006 WL 416244, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 22, 2006) (“[T]his court has no authority to finance or pay for a party's discovery expenses even though the party has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).”). Moreover, if Plaintiff seeks to depose Defendants, he must arrange for the court reporter and coordinate the deposition with defense counsel and prison officials.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part as set forth above with regard to RFP Nos. 2 and 4 and denied in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED.