Adams v. The City of Montgomery - Maintenance Department

Filing 124

OPINION AND ORDER denying 118 MOTION to Reconsider, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/6/2012. (wcl, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION WILLIE ADAMS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10cv924-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER It is ORDERED that defendant City of Montgomery’s motion to reconsider (Doc. No. 118) is denied. *** The court notes that much of defendant City of Montgomery’s motion repeats arguments already made and considered. However, the court wishes to respond to the city’s renewed assertion that it was under no obligation to disclose the identity of internal-affairs investigator Walter Lilley, Jr. the signed witness The city has already conceded that statements (Doc. No. 81-2) discoverable and not covered by any privilege. were Lilley’s signature is on these documents as the “investigating officer.” Thus, even under the assumption that the city is correct that plaintiff Willie Adams’s interrogatories did not require the listing of Lilley’s name, Adams’s counsel would have learned about Lilley’s existence if the city had turned over the signed witness statements during discovery. With regard to the city’s argument that it could properly withhold Lilley’s identity as privileged, the city’s privilege log–-which its attorney maintains was timely sent in September 2011–-refers to Lilley in its description of the privileged documents. Privilege Log (Doc. No. 96-1) at 1. positions are self-defeating: if The city’s multiple its attorney had complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)’s procedures for producing a privilege log, Adams’s counsel would have been informed of Lilley’s identity. DONE, this the 6th day of June, 2012. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?