Daugherty v. Hurst

Filing 83

Order DENYING as MOOT IN PART & UNNECESSARY IN PART Plf's 69 MOTION to Compel as set out. The parties are to file a report, pursuant to Rule 26(f), & the Court's 14 Preliminary Scheduling Order, on or before 8/17/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 7/23/18. (tot)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHUNTA DAUGHERTY, individually, :
and as the administrator of the estate :
of Michael Dashawn Moore,
:
Plaintiff,

:

vs.

: Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00072-CG-C

HAROLD HURST,

:

Defendant.

:
ORDER

This matter is before the undersigned on Plaintiff Shunta Daugherty’s
Motion to Compel Production of ESI and Body-Cam Video (“motion to
compel”), which was filed on June 8, 2018. (Doc. 69). This matter came
before the undersigned for a hearing, via telephone conference, on July 18,
2018. (Doc. 72). Plaintiff motions the Court to enter an Order that compels
non-parties City of Mobile and City of Mobile Police Department (collectively,
the “City”) to produce certain materials maintained by the City that include
body camera video of Defendant Hurst engaged in excessive force and
electronically stored information that includes emails, social media posts, and
text messages that are related to the shooting of Michael Dashawn Moore on
June 13, 2016. (Doc. 69, at 6-8). Plaintiff issued a Subpoena to Produce
Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a
Civil Action to the City on September 25, 2017, (Docs. 42, 69-1, & 69-2). The

City responded it produced Plaintiff’s requested video, and coordinated with
its IT department to search its emails using the key terms, and date range,
that were provided by Plaintiff. (Doc. 77, at 2-4). Plaintiff takes issue with
the City because it did not coordinate with Plaintiff’s IT vendors when it
conducted its search. (Doc. 77, ¶¶ 2-3).
On June 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint, (Doc.
70), to add the City of Mobile and the University of South Alabama Medical
Center as defendants and assert claims against them, which was granted by
the Court, (Doc. 71).

On July 3, 2018, the University of South Alabama

Medical Center was served, (Doc. 80), and the City of Mobile was served on
July 6, 2018, (Doc. 81).

Based on the posture of the case, and as the

undersigned discussed with the parties at the hearing, Plaintiff’s remaining
discovery requests can be addressed with the City of Mobile since it is, now, a
defendant in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel, (Doc. 69),
is hereby DENIED as MOOT IN PART and UNNECESSARY IN PART.
Additionally, the parties are ORDERED to file a report, pursuant to Rule
26(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court’s Preliminary
Scheduling Order, (Doc. 14), on or before August 17, 2018.
DONE and ORDERED this the 23rd day of July 2018.
s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2