The American Humanist Association, Inc. et al v. City of Ocala, Florida et al

Filing 48

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 46 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 5/13/2016. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
THE AMERICAN HUMANIST
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 5:14-cv-651-Oc-32PRL

CITY OF OCALA, FLORIDA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to interrogatories
directed to the City of Ocala and Chief Graham. (Doc. 46). Defendants have filed a response in
opposition. (Doc. 47). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
I.

BACKGROUND

As the Court previously explained, this case is about the September 24, 2014 Community
Prayer Vigil and whether the City of Ocala, Mayor Guinn, and Chief Graham organized and
promoted it in violation of the First Amendment. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Ocala
Police Department (“OPD”) posted on its Facebook page a letter on its own letterhead, signed by
Chief Graham stating that the community was facing a crisis “that requires fervent prayer” and
urging community members to attend the Prayer Vigil; that Mayor Guinn sent an email
communication in which he refused to cancel the Prayer Vigil and stated “we are trying to promote
it;” that the Prayer Vigil was held on the Downtown Square; and that uniformed OPD officials
participated in the Prayer Vigil with some officers leading the religious activities.

In response to Plaintiffs’ allegations of officer participation at the Prayer Vigil, the City of
Ocala and Chief Graham admitted in their Answer that volunteer chaplains for the OPD, “wearing
a civilian uniform containing the designation of ‘chaplain,’ and distinctly different from the
uniform worn by sworn officers” participated and spoke at the Prayer Vigil and led the crowd in
singing “God Bless America,” and changed the words to “God Heal America.” Doc. 38 at ¶¶ 33,
34, 35, 36, 37.
II.

STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 allows parties to serve interrogatories which relate to
any matter that may be inquired into under Rule 26(b). Pursuant to Rule 26(b), “[p]arties may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of
all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may
be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and
just result.” Oliver v. City of Orlando, No. 6:06-cv-1671-Orl-31DAB, 2007 WL 3232227, at *1
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2007) (citing United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682
(1958)). “Relevancy is determined based on the 'tendency to make a fact more or less probable
than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.'
Fed. R. Evid. 401.” Hankinson v. R.T.G. Furniture Corp., No. 15-81139-civ-Cohn/Seltzer, 2016

-2-

WL 1182768, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2016) (quoting Garcia v. Padilla, No. 2:15-cv-735-FtM29CM, 2016 WL 881143, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2016)).
Proportionality requires counsel and the court to consider whether relevant information is
discoverable in view of the needs of the case. In making this determination, the court is guided
by the non-exclusive list of factors in Rule 26(b)(1). Graham & Co., LLC v. Liberty Mut. Fire
Ins. Co., No. 2:14-cv-2148-JHH, 2016 WL 1319697, at *3 (N.D. Ala. April 5, 2016). “Any
application of the proportionality factors must start with the actual claims and defenses in the case,
and a consideration of how and to what degree the requested discovery bears on those claims and
defenses.” Id. (quoting Witt v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 307 F.R.D. 554, 569 (D. Colo. 2014)).
Objections to discovery must be “plain enough and specific enough so that the court can
understand in what way the [discovery is] alleged to be objectionable.” Panola Land Buyers
Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985) (quoting Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154,
1160 (9th Cir. 1981)). Objections to discovery on the grounds that it is overly broad and not
relevant are not sufficient; rather, the objecting party should state why the discovery is overly
broad or not relevant. Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982). The objecting
party must do more than “simply intone [the] familiar litany that the interrogatories are
burdensome, oppressive or overly broad.” Lane v. Capital Acquisitions, 242 F.R.D. 667, 670
(S.D. Fla. 2005). “Instead, the objecting party must ‘show specifically how, despite the broad
and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules, . . . each question is overly broad,
burdensome or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the
burden.’” Id. (quoting Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance Pour le Commerce Exterieur v.
Phillips Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, 42 (S.D.N.Y.1984)).

-3-

III.

DISCUSSION
At issue are five interrogatories directed at the City of Ocala focused on the chaplaincy

program and one interrogatory directed at Chief Graham regarding his religious affiliation and
church membership. Defendants have objected to these interrogatories as not relevant and not
proportional to the needs of the case.
With respect to the chaplaincy program, the following interrogatories are in dispute:
Interrogatory No. 10: State the date/year (approximate) of when OPD began its
chaplaincy program, and describe any and all changes that have occurred to OPD policies
with regard to chaplains since that date.
Interrogatory No. 11: Please identify and describe the process by which an individual
becomes an OPD Chaplain, whether paid or volunteer, and include any and all criteria
and required qualifications for the position.
Interrogatory No. 12: Please identify all individuals whose application or request for a
position as an OPD Chaplain, whether paid or volunteer, was rejected or declined.
Include in your answer: (1) the religious affiliation of said individual; and (2) all grounds
for the rejection or denial.
Interrogatory No. 14: Please state the religious affiliation of all current OPD
Chaplains.
Interrogatory No. 15: If the OPD has ever had a non-Christian chaplain, please
identify all such individuals and state when each such person served as an OPD chaplain,
as well as their religious affiliation.

At the most fundamental level, the parties dispute whether information regarding the
chaplaincy program is relevant to this lawsuit. Defendants argue that the requested information
is not relevant because the Complaint does not mention the chaplaincy program and the Complaint
does not allege the promotion of religion by the OPD in any manner other than the Prayer Vigil.
On the other hand, Plaintiffs argue that, “[g]iven the fact that OPD chaplains were allegedly key
participants in the Prayer Vigil, leading the public in Christian prayers while wearing OPD
chaplaincy uniforms, the interrogatories in question are directly relevant to the issues in this case,

-4-

as they would provide background information on the chaplaincy corps that are at the center of the
Prayer Vigil.” (Doc. 46 at 3). Plaintiffs further state that since they claim that OPD and its
representatives knowingly and willingly promoted Christianity, “facts providing basic background
information on the chaplaincy program and its potential Christian bias would be relevant.” Id.
While the Complaint does not mention the chaplaincy program, there is no question that
Defendants injected the issue in the case by virtue of their Answer. As noted above, Defendants
admitted that volunteer chaplains for the OPD, “wearing a civilian uniform containing the
designation of ‘chaplain’ and distinctly different from the uniform of sworn officers” participated
and spoke at the Prayer Vigil and led the crowd in singing “God Bless America,” and changed the
words to “God Heal America.” Doc. 38 at ¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. Based on these admissions,
Plaintiffs are entitled to some information regarding the chaplaincy program and its relationship
to the OPD. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to Interrogatories No. 10 and
No. 11 is GRANTED to the extent that the City of Ocala shall provide the OPD policies with
respect to chaplains in place at the time of the Prayer Vigil, including the process by which an
individual becomes an OPD Chaplain and any and all criteria and required qualifications for the
position.
However, I agree with Defendants that the remaining interrogatories seek information
outside the proper scope of discovery.

Interrogatories No. 12, No. 14, and No. 15 seek

information regarding applicants who were rejected from the chaplaincy program as well as
information on the religious affiliation of all current chaplains.

Plaintiffs claim that such

information will support their theory that the chaplaincy program is actually an “exclusive club”
with a “particular Christian view.” However, this case is not about the constitutionality of the
chaplaincy corps; rather, the case focuses on whether the City of Ocala, Mayor Guinn, and Chief

-5-

Graham organized and promoted the Prayer Vigil in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to Interrogatories No. 12, No. 14 and No.
15 is DENIED because the requested information is not relevant to the issue in this case.
Likewise, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Chief Graham to respond to Interrogatory No.
22 – seeking his “current religious affiliation” and the name and address of any church to which
he belongs or regularly attends – is DENIED. The requested information does not have a
tendency to make Plaintiffs’ allegations more or less true that Chief Graham purportedly violated
the Establishment Clause by signing the letter posted on the OPD Facebook page stating that the
community was facing a crisis “that requires fervent prayer” and urging community members to
attend the Prayer Vigil or by having OPD volunteer chaplains participate in or lead the Prayer
Vigil.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on May 13, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-6-