Adams v. The City of Montgomery - Maintenance Department
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, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
It is ORDERED that defendant City of Montgomery’s
motion to reconsider (Doc. No. 118) is denied.
Montgomery’s motion repeats arguments already made and
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 city has already conceded that
discoverable and not covered by any privilege.
signature is on these documents as the “investigating
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
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.
The city’s multiple
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?