DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION Plaintiff George Wishart brings this action against ten individual corrections officers. Plaintiff alleges that when he was incarcerated at Orleans Correctional Facility, defendant Welkley sexually harassed plaintiff’s girlfriend when she came to visit, and sent her harassing emails afterward. When plaintiff complained, he alleges that on March 14, 2016, the ten individual defendant officers collectively beat him, causing a rotator cuff injury that required surgery to correct, wrongfully placed plaintiff in solitary confinement, and filed false reports about the incident. The Office of Special Investigation later investigated, and determined that there was sufficient evidence to substantiate plaintiff’s allegations that Welkley had harassed plaintiff’s girlfriend, and that prison staff members had assaulted plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges claims including excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights, and failure to intervene. The instant motion seeking sanctions for contempt involves two of the individual defendants: Correction Officer Swiatowy (“Swiatowy”), and Correction Sergeant James Opperman (“Opperman”). Familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this matter is presumed. In brief, on January 29, 2021, Magistrate Judge Pedersen issued a Decision and Order (Dkt. #83) granting a motion by plaintiff to compel discovery. He directed that the defendants turn over their personal electronic devices for forensic analysis by an electronically stored information (“ESI”) vendor, and further directed that such analysis take place at defendants’ expense. In connection with that Decision and Order, defendants were also ordered to pay plaintiff’s reasonable expenses in seeking to compel defendants’ compliance with plaintiff’s e-discovery demands. At a status conference on March 17, 2021, Magistrate Pedersen learned that not all defendants had yet complied with the January 29, 2021 Decision and Order, and directed them to do so “forthwith.” (Dkt. #86). Efforts by the ESI vendor to collect devices and other e-discovery from Swiatowy and Opperman included multiple e-mails to them, in and after April 2021, for the purpose of scheduling remote collection of their data, and properly coordinating the delivery of collection kits to their homes. These efforts were beset by difficulties. After Opperman’s initial remote data collection appointment did not take place due to connection difficulties, he resisted efforts to reschedule, expressing frustration at the need to turn over information he had already provided previously, and at delays which he claimed were not his fault. (Dkt. #91 at 9, Dkt. #101 at (G)). As for Swiatowy, after his initial collection appointment was canceled by the vendor due to the inability to ship a collection kit on time, he made no attempt to reschedule. (Dkt. #101 at (F)). On June 1, 2021, approximately six weeks after the ESI vendor first reached out to Swiatowy and Opperman, plaintiff indicated that he had not yet received their e-discovery. Plaintiff moved for sanctions for defendants’ noncompliance with discovery orders, and sought Judge Pedersen’s certification of the relevant facts to this Court, for contempt. (Dkt. #88). On March 11, 2022, Magistrate Judge Pedersen granted that motion in part, sanctioned defendants in the amount of $66,955.48 (later amended to $104,603.48), and separately entered a Certification for Contempt. (Dkt. #100, #101, #111). In the weeks that followed, Swiatowy and Opperman both rescheduled their data collection with the ESI vendor, and on June 22, 2021, their counsel indicated that their compliance with the January 20, 2021 Decision and Order was finally complete. (Dkt. #95 at
