Rudolph et al v. The City of Montgomery et al

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM ORDER: For these reasons, plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (ECF No. 81 )is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, AND DEFERRED IN PART. The City has 14 days from the date of this Order to file its response. Any further reply from plaintiffs shall be due 7 days from the date of the City's response. Signed by Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 4/8/2020. (kh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
BRAZIL RUDOLPH, TITO WILLIAMS,
and EVELYN BROWN, individually and
for a class of similarly situated persons,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-57-RCL

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 81) from the City of
Montgomery (“the City”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Upon consideration of the
motion, opposition (ECF No. 82), and reply (ECF No. 83), the Court has concluded that
plaintiffs’ motion should be GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, AND DEFERRED
IN PART.
Plaintiffs’ first request is for clarification from the Court regarding its March 10, 2017
Memorandum Opinion. See ECF No. 81 at 1. Plaintiffs’ phrasing of this request in their initial
motion was extremely unclear, though they specified in their reply that they seek an order from
the Court clarifying that its Memorandum Opinion did not limit the class to individuals who
were indigent at the time they received letters threatening imminent arrest. Because this was not
clear until their reply, the City did not get to respond to this point. In recognition of the fact that a
discovery order is not the normal medium through which the Court would clarify a previous
order, it is only fair to give the City an opportunity to respond. Therefore, the Court ORDERS
the City to file a response explaining whether it agrees with plaintiff’s broader interpretation of
1

the class; if it does not agree, the City must explain its more limited interpretation of the Court’s
March 10, 2017 Memorandum Opinion. The City’s response should also clarify whether its
discovery responses included all responsive information regarding both indigents and nonindigents.
Plaintiffs’ second request is for confirmation that defendants must comply with classwide discovery. See id. at 1-2. The City argues that this request is moot, as class-wide discovery
has already been provided. Plaintiffs specifically demand information about money that putative
class members have already paid, but the City notes that plaintiffs already have a spreadsheet
listing people who were charged a DA collection fee during the relevant time period, which also
includes the names of people who received DA letters. According to the Municipal Court, if the
DA’s office sent people listed on the spreadsheet a DA letter, that letter should be scanned into
the individual’s Municipal Court file along with receipt of any payments. Nevertheless, plaintiffs
are concerned that the City has retained responsive documents without providing a privilege log.
The Court therefore ORDERS the City to verify whether all class-wide discovery has been
produced. The City must also state whether any responsive documents have been withheld. The
Court will wait for this response before ordering a privilege log, as a privilege log may not be
necessary depending on the answer.
Plaintiffs’ third request is for confirmation from the Court that information pertaining to
payment of fines, costs, and fees is discoverable. See ECF No. 81 at 2. The City argues that this
request is moot, as the City provided full access to the putative class members’ Municipal Court
files. The Municipal Court’s practice is to enter receipts for payment of fines and collection fees
into individual defendants’ files. The City has represented to this Court that “any fee that was
paid would be itemized in the record of receipts in each putative class members’ Municipal
2

Court files.” See ECF No. 82 at 4. Nevertheless, plaintiffs are still concerned that defendant has
withheld responsive documents without providing a privilege log. The Court therefore ORDERS
the City to verify whether all documents regarding payments of fines and costs or fees have been
produced and whether any responsive documents have been withheld. The Court will wait for
this response before ordering a privilege log, as a privilege log may not be necessary depending
on the answer.
Plaintiffs’ fourth request is for clarification regarding the Protective Order signed on
December 20, 2019. See ECF No. 81 at 2-3. Plaintiffs’ initial request regarding this matter was
unclear, but in their reply, they specify that they want to know:
[I]f information, such as a name, a date, or an address, contained in the portal may
also appear in a newspaper, a public website, or other non-related document or
material, does the Court’s Order . . . apply to the name, date, or address, regardless
of its source or coincidental nature? If a filing contains information that is otherwise
public but is coincidentally contained in the portal, must the filing be made under
seal?
ECF No. 83 at 4. If the exact information that appears on the portal also appears in some other
public source, that information does not need to be filed under seal. The Protective Order itself
specifically contains exceptions for matters of public record. Of course, it would still be
improper to cite the portal as the source of that information. This is the routine way to handle
information contained in a document or other source that is subject to a protective order but that
is also publicly available from some other source.
Plaintiffs’ fifth request is for an order from the Court declaring that warrant fees are
discoverable. See ECF No. 81 at 3. The City argues that this request is moot, as plaintiffs have
been given access to the Municipal Court files and can locate putative class members’ records
therein via the spreadsheets. It is the Municipal Court’s practice to enter detailed receipts of any
fees paid in any case, including any warrant fee. Nevertheless, plaintiffs are still concerned that
3

certain information may not have been turned over, and they note that no privilege log has been
provided. The Court therefore ORDERS the City to verify whether all documents regarding
warrant fees have been produced and whether any responsive documents have been withheld.
The Court will wait for this response before ordering a privilege log, as a privilege log may not
be necessary depending on the answer.
Plaintiffs’ sixth request is for an order compelling the City to turn over “all informationrelated policies or practices that have been in place since the District Attorney’s office has been
involved in collecting or attempting to collect any sums of money pursuant to Ala. Code § 1217-225-225.2 for the City of Montgomery and/or the Montgomery Municipal Court.” ECF No.
81 at 3. The City objects, claiming that this request is overly broad, vague, and burdensome. The
Court agrees that this request is disproportional to the needs of the case. The phrase
“information-related policies or practices” is exceedingly vague, and much of the information
that would be turned over in accordance with that phrase would be completely irrelevant.
Therefore, plaintiffs’ sixth request is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ seventh request is for an order compelling production of a list of persons who
are reasonably likely to have electronically stored information relating to the claims in this case.
See id. at 4. As plaintiffs acknowledge in their reply, this request is moot and is therefore
DENIED. See ECF No. 83 at 4-5.
Plaintiffs’ eighth request is for an order compelling production of all records evidencing
or relating to the payment of fines, costs, and other sums of money. See ECF No. 81 at 4. The
City argues that this request is moot, as it seeks information already provided. The Municipal
Court’s practice is to record receipts of these payments in each person’s file, and all such files
have been provided to plaintiffs through the password-protected web portal. The City notes that
4

receipts are broken down into categories, so plaintiffs should easily be able to find this
information through the web portal. Nevertheless, plaintiffs are concerned that responsive
documents were withheld without a privilege log. The Court therefore ORDERS the City to
verify whether all records regarding payment of fines, costs, and other sums of money have been
produced and whether any responsive documents have been withheld. The Court will wait for
this response before ordering a privilege log, as a privilege log may not be necessary depending
on the answer.
Plaintiffs’ ninth request is for an order compelling production of arrest warrants for
individuals to whom the DA’s office sent a DA letter. See id. The City argues that this request is
moot, as plaintiffs have full access to this information through the Municipal Court files which
contain the arrest warrants for any person who was sent a DA letter. This information all comes
from the Municipal Court, and the City has represented to this Court that it has no additional
information about these arrest warrants. See ECF No. 82 at 9. Nevertheless, plaintiffs are
concerned that arrest warrants were withheld without a privilege log. The Court therefore
ORDERS the City to verify whether all arrest warrants have been produced and whether any
responsive discovery materials have been withheld. The Court will wait for this response before
ordering a privilege log, as a privilege log may not be necessary depending on the answer.
Plaintiffs’ tenth request is for an order extending discovery. See ECF No. 81 at 4. The
Court will wait for the City’s response before ruling on this request, as an extension may not be
necessary if the City has already provided all responsive information.
For these reasons, plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 81) is GRANTED IN PART,
DENIED IN PART, AND DEFERRED IN PART. The City has 14 days from the date of this

5

Order to file its response. Any further reply from plaintiffs shall be due 7 days from the date of
the City’s response.
It is SO ORDERED.

Date: April 8, 2020

ssss/s/ Royce C. Lamberthsssssss
Royce C. Lamberth
United States District Court Judge

6