Prisons – VDOC must respond to discovery requests

Where inmates challenging a Virginia Department of Corrections program moved to compel discovery, their motion was partially granted. Discovery requests seeking information concerning a material change in the Step-Down Program’s practices and conditions of confinement must be answered.

Background

This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents and Virginia Department of Corrections, or VDOC’s, motion for a protective order governing Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

Analysis

In a March 4, 2026, order, the court allowed plaintiffs to serve “one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice limited to any material changes in the subject Step-Down Program and its policies, practices, and conditions of confinement.” This order also allowed not more than 10 requests for production and 10 interrogatories to be served. The court’s decision on the motions turns, in part, on the wording and interpretation of the court’s March 4, 2026, order, which allowed additional discovery “limited to any material changes in the subject Step-Down Program and its policies, practices, and conditions of confinement.”

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language New College Edition defines “material,” when used as an adjective, as “substantial.” Webster’s II New College Dictionary also defines “material,” when used as an adjective, as “substantial.” Therefore, based on the wording of the March 4, 2026, order, not all changes in the Step-Down Program were intended to be the subject of further discovery. The order also states that the additional discovery is allowed with regard to material changes in the practices and conditions of confinement in addition to the policies of the Step-Down Program.

Therefore the motion to compel is granted insofar as the VDOC shall respond to request three and six based on the court’s finding that these discovery requests seek information concerning a material change in the Step-Down Program’s practices and conditions of confinement. The motion to compel is otherwise denied because the remaining discovery requests either do not seek information concerning material changes in the Step-Down Program or the plaintiffs have not persuaded the undersigned that they seek information concerning material changes in the Step-Down Program. Defense counsel shall provide the documents responsive to these requests to plaintiffs’ counsel prior to the additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

The motion for protective order is granted insofar as the VDOC is not required to produce a witness to testify as to topics three and four. The motion for protective order is denied as to topic one based on the court’s finding that the development and use of the Safety Agreements resulted in a material change in the practices and conditions of confinement of the Step-Down Program.

Plaintiffs’ motion for compel granted in part, denied in part. Defendant’s motion for protective order granted in part, denied in part.

Thorpe v. Virginia Department of Corrections, Case No. 2:20-cv-00007, May 14, 2026. WDVA at Big Stone Gap (Sargent). VLW 026-3-212. 6 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-3-212