DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
On July 26, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Statement Re Discovery Dispute on Production of Use of Force Videos ("Joint Statement") (ECF No. 4719). The Joint Statement reflects that plaintiffs seek to compel production of use of force videos in connection with an evidentiary hearing now set before the assigned District Judge on plaintiffs' May 29, 2013 motion for concerning use of force and disciplinary measures. Plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that they "and their experts must have a copy of the videos to review, edit, and select portions for presentation at trial." Joint Statement (ECF No. 4719) at 1. Defendants oppose plaintiffs' motion to compel on the ground that plaintiffs have not served a discovery request; that plaintiffs' motion is a "second improper request for reconsideration" of this court's prior orders concerning production of use of force videos for review by plaintiffs' expert; and that plaintiffs' argument concerning use of videos at the evidentiary hearing "does not pertain to discovery and is not the proper subject of a motion to compel." Id. at 1-2. Defendants do not object to producing use of force videotapes at the evidentiary hearing if that hearing proceeds.
After review of the Joint Statement, the parties will be directed to meet and confer in order to identify a representative selection of use of force videos to be offered into evidence at the evidentiary hearing. The videos to be offered into evidence should be selected from those reviewed by both of the parties' experts. The videos selected by the parties shall be of a reasonable total length, but in no event shall exceed eight hours in length. Plaintiffs' request for production of those videos for their separate review and editing will be denied. The court will, however, require that plaintiffs be given adequate access to the use of force videos consistent with the need for proper preparation for the evidentiary hearing. The question of whether the representative videos selected by the parties will be presented in open court or inspected in camera is reserved for the assigned District Judge.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Except as expressly provided by this order, plaintiffs' motion to compel production of use of force videos is denied;
2. The parties shall meet and confer and work together to identify a representative selection of use of force videos reviewed by both plaintiffs' and defendants' experts to be offered into evidence at the evidentiary hearing; those videos shall be of a reasonable total length, but in no event shall exceed eight hours in length; if the parties cannot agree on the videos to be presented each, as appropriate, may separately identify specific videos to offer into evidence at the hearing which shall be of a reasonable total length, but in no event shall exceed four hours per side in length; and
3. The question of whether the videos will be presented in open court or inspected in camera is reserved ...