Long v. City of Seward

Filing 81

Order on Motion for Discovery, Order on Motion for Sanctions

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

ROBERT A. LONG,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:05-cv-0044-RRB

vs.
CITY OF SEWARD,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AT
DOCKETS 60, 63, and 64

Plaintiff is suing the City of Seward, alleging that it
conspired to obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses that
Plaintiff hoped to use on his behalf in a criminal matter brought
against him by the United States of America.

Plaintiff, however,

has yet to say why the City of Seward would engage in such conduct
or what the City of Seward did wrong.
Louis

Bencardino,

who

Plaintiff

Plaintiff does point to one
alleges

was

threatened

or

intimidated by the City of Seward, but Mr. Bencardino denies having
been so threatened or intimidated.

In fact, it appears that

Mr. Bencardino did testify telephonically at Plaintiff’s bail
hearing and did drive to Anchorage to testify at Plaintiff’s trial.
Mr. Dieni, in the letter provided to the Court by Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 60, 63, AND 64 - 1
3:05-CV-0044-RRB

indicates that Mr. Bencardino was prevented from testifying at
trial because of a ruling

by the trial judge, not because of any

intimidation Mr. Bencardino felt.

Apparently, had the judge

permitted it, Mr. Bencardino would have testified as a character
witness for Plaintiff at the criminal trial, regardless of how the
City of Seward or any of its employees may have felt.

Given these

facts, it is difficult for the Court to see a connection between
what the City of Seward may have felt and what Mr. Bencardino
actually did. And there does not appear to be any legitimate basis
to sanction Mr. Bencardino or for the Court to further investigate
the matter. Mr. Bencardino appears to be an innocent party in this
matter, who was at one time desirous of helping Plaintiff, but is
now being vilified.

Therefore, Mr. Bencardino’s telephone records

are not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, nor does there appear to be
any justification for discovery regarding other unrelated matters
involving the City of Seward.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Criminal and Civil Sanctions against Bencardino at Docket 60,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery of Phone Records of Bencardino at
Docket 63, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery of City of Seward,
Police Evidence Records, at Docket 64 are hereby DENIED.
ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2006.
/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AT DOCKETS 60, 63, AND 64 - 2
3:05-CV-0044-RRB