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, )

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