Motion for Reconsideration Doc.109-main 06-24-2016 NOW COMES Plaintiff, Alvin L. Sutherlin, Jr. (Pro Se) in response to defendants Discovery letter (Dkt. No. 106). The defendants have provided three additional affidavits from Officer W. C. Shively Officer L. D. Land, and Officer D. C. Lancaster. Both defendants Officer L. D. Land, and Officer D. C. Lancaster state that both were wearing cameras on September 25th, 2013 when they entered the Plaintiffs home that day. The defendants were ordered to provide in an affidavit naming which officers did not have a camera. The only officer to date that provides an affidavit stating he did not have a camera is Lieutenant J. W. Smith. To date, Plaintiff has not been given any video data of any kind from Officer L. D. Land and Officer D. C. Lancaster . (Please see: Copies of attached affidavits from Officer D. C. Lancaster, Officer W. C. Shively Officer L. D. Land and Lieutenant J. W. Smith.) Pursuant to the Honorable Judge Ballou's Order on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No. 90) the defendants were ordered to produced video data from each defendant present wearing a camera this includes Officer L.D. Land and Officer D. C. Lancaster. The order reads as follow in part: (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 2 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. The defendants to date still have not satisfied or fulfilled the Honorable Judge Ballou's order filed on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No. 90). .....

1. Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 109 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 5 Pageid#: 1456
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN FILS0
DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA DANVILLE DIVISION JUN2k2016
ALVIN L. SUTHERLIN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 4:15CV00037
v. •
LIEUTENANT J. W. SMITH,
SERGEANT H. S. RICHARDSON, and
OFFICER N. M. SLOVER, and OFFICER M. C. PACE, and
OFFICER R. C. LANDRUM, and .
OFFICER D. C. LANCASTER, and OFFICER W. C. SHIVELY, and
OFFICER W. R. MERRILL, and OFFICER J.D. DIXON, and
OFFICER L. D. LAND,
Defendants.
AMEND PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS DISCOVERY
LETTER (Dkt. No. 102)
l

2. Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 109 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 5 Pageid#: 1456
NOW COMES Plaintiff, Alvin L. Sutherlin, Jr. (Pro Se) in responseto defendants
Discovery letter (Dkt. No. 106).
The defendants have provided three additional affidavits from Officer W. C. Shively
Officer L. D. Land, and Officer D. C. Lancaster. Both defendants Officer L. D.
Land, and Officer D. C. Lancaster state that both were wearing cameras on
September 25th, 2013 when they entered the Plaintiffs home that day. The
defendants were ordered to provide in an affidavit naming which officers did not
have a camera. The only officer to date that provides an affidavit stating he did not
have a camera is Lieutenant J. W. Smith. To date, Plaintiff has not been given any
video data of any kind from Officer L. D. Land and Officer D. C. Lancaster . (Please
see: Copies of attached affidavits from Officer D. C. Lancaster, Officer W. C.
Shively Officer L. D. Land and Lieutenant J. W. Smith.)
Pursuant to the Honorable Judge Ballou's Order on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No.
90) the defendants were ordered to produced video data from each defendant present
wearing a camera this includes Officer L.D. Land and Officer D. C. Lancaster.
The order reads as follow in part:
(1) Defendants shall producea 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 producean 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 produceany written reports prepared by the officers in
attendance at the execution of the search warrant. If any officers did not
2
prepare a written report, Defendants have agreed to provide an affidavit
stating which officers did not prepare reports. If any officers were not

3. Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 109 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 5 Pageid#: 1456
wearing a bodycamera at the time of the execution of the warrant,
Defendants will include this fact in the affidavit and state which officers
had no cameras.
The defendants to date still have not satisfied or fulfilled the Honorable Judge
Ballou's order filed on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No. 90).
Both of these defendants video data evidence is extremely relevant to the Plaintiff
case. These two defendants also testified against the Plaintiff during his criminal
proceedings in the City of Danville Circuit Court and both withheld their exculpatory
evidence from the Plaintiff and are continuing withholding discoverable information
in this Court's proceedings also.
The defendants have provided many Discovery Letters after the Honorable Judge
Ballou's Order on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No. 90). giving the court a misleading
perception that defendants have satisfied the court order to compel.
Pursuant to the Honorable Judge Ballou's Order on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No.
90) the Plaintiff respectively asks that the court makes the defendants provide the
video data to the Plaintiff from Officer L.D. Land and Officer D. C. Lancaster
cameras.
In lieu of the defendant failure to obeythe Order on Motion to Compel from
Honorable Judge Ballou's Order on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No. 90) the Plaintiff
must for the record object to the Order on Motion to Compel filed on June 22,
2016 (See: Dkt. No. 107).
The Plaintiff respectively ask that the court to reconsider its opinion that the
defendants have satisfied all of their Discovery obligation to the Plaintiff in light of
the fact that the defendants Officer L.D. Land and Officer D. C. Lancaster to
3
date have not fulfilled their obligation and satisfying the Court's order entered in on
May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No. 90). This deliberate delay by the defendants is meant
to place the Plaintiff at a significant disadvantage at trial. By attempting to continue
to withhold discoverable evidence from the Plaintiff referring to Officer L. D. Land's
and Officer D. C. Lancaster's video data that exists within the database at the City of

4. Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 109 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 5 Pageid#: 1456
Danville Police Department.
Any and all video data from the defendants Officer L. D. Land's and Officer D. C.
Lancaster is highly relevant to the Plaintiffs case and may be used for impeachment
purposes.
If the Plaintiff is made to plead his case without this critical evidence from these two
defendants. The Plaintiff respectively asks that this is noted for the record that the
Plaintiff has been forced to plead his case without critical discoverable information
withheld from the Plaintiff by the defendants as of the filing of this letter responding
to the Discovery letter from the defendants dated June 22nd,
2016.
The Plaintiff respectively asks this Honorable court for sanctions (See: Dkt. No.
80) against the defendants Officer L. D. Land and Officer D. C. Lancaster for not
obeying the Honorable Judge Ballou's Order on May 10th, 2016 (See: Dkt. No.
90). The part of the order that these defendants have not obeyed reads as follow:
(l) 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.
The Plaintiff respectively asks this Honorable court to schedule an evidentiary
hearing before trial.
4

5. Case 4:15-cv-00037-JLK-RSB Document 109 Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 5 Pageid#: 1456
5
Alvin L. Sutherlin, Jr. (Pro Se)
505 Jefferson Street, 1st
, Floor
Danville, Virginia 24541-2037
434-728-2673 (Cell phone)
Sutherlin.jr@gmail .com
I hereby certify that the foregoing notice of the lawsuit was sent by regular mail, postal paid or hand
delivered, this 24th, day of June 2016 to Clerk of Court of The United States District Court For
Western District of Virginia Danville Division and I also hereby certify that I have mailed or hand
delivered a copy of the foregoing to the office of Daniel, Medley & Kirby, P.C, 110 North Union
Street P. O. Box 720, Danville, VA 24543-0720