ABINGDON, VA (LN) — U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on Thursday granted in part and denied in part discovery motions in a class action challenging conditions at Virginia’s Step-Down Program, ruling that plaintiffs may only seek documents and testimony regarding "substantial" changes to the program’s policies and practices.
The dispute centers on a March 4, 2026, scheduling order that permitted plaintiffs to serve one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice and limited document requests to "any material changes Step-Down Program and its policies, practices, and conditions of confinement."
Plaintiffs sought documents related to a December 16, 2024, Virginia House of Delegates Public Safety Committee meeting, including slide presentations, drafts, and communications with legislators. They also sought documents regarding a "Safety Agreement" presented to inmates in or around January 2025, including drafts, signed agreements, and records of decisions to cut or restore power to cell outlets for those who refused to sign.
Additionally, plaintiffs requested documents on self-injurious behavior, suicide attempts, and lockdowns from March 1, 2023, to the present.
The Virginia Department of Corrections objected to producing a witness for deposition on topics including changes in training for personnel supervising the Step-Down Program and the scientific basis for those changes.
Judge Sargent defined "material" by citing dictionary definitions of "substantial." She ruled that not all changes in the Step-Down Program were intended to be subject to further discovery.
The magistrate judge ordered VDOC to respond to Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 6, finding they seek information concerning a material change in the program’s practices and conditions of confinement. Request No. 3 covers the Safety Agreement and related incidents. Request No. 6 covers lockdowns.
The court denied the Motion to Compel for the remaining requests, including those related to the legislative hearing, finding plaintiffs did not persuade the judge that those requests sought information concerning material changes.
The court also granted VDOC’s Motion for Protective Order regarding deposition Topics 3 and 4, which concerned training changes and their scientific basis. The court denied the protective order for Topic 1, finding the development and use of the Safety Agreements resulted in a material change in practices and conditions of confinement.
The case is set for bench trial from October 5 through October 23, 2026.