LANE et al v. FORT WALTON BEACH HOUSING AUTHORITY et al

Filing 45

ORDER re: 44 Expedited Motion for Clarification of Order. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 9/21/2011. (sea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
SYLVESTER B. LANE and
MARY LANE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

CASE NO. 3-11-cv-374/RS-CJK

FORT WALTON BEACH HOUSING
AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER
Before me is Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Clarification of Order and
Supporting Memorandum (Doc. 44). Plaintiffs object to Defendant giving the Hearing
Officer a copy of the transcript from the preliminary injunction hearing, and for not
providing a copy of that transcript to Plaintiffs.
A transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing may be properly provided to the
Hearing Officer. While the Hearing Officer’s amended determination may not consider
evidence which was not available at the time of the initial hearing, the transcript allows
the Hearing Officer to understand the issues which he inadequately addressed in the first
instance.
As to providing a copy of the preliminary injunction transcript, 24 CFR §
982.555(e)(2)(i) provides that Plaintiffs are entitled to examine before the PHA hearing
any documents that are directly related to the hearing. The transcript of the preliminary

injunction is not a document that was considered at the hearing. Rather, the transcript is
considered not as new evidence, but as instructions to the Hearing Officer to comply with
applicable regulations. Plaintiffs’ request to be provided with a transcript which contains
markings or notations of counsel is also improper because those notations are work
product. While Defendant is not required to provide a transcript to Plaintiffs, out of
courtesy it should provide a clean copy.

ORDERED on September 21, 2011.
/S/ Richard Smoak
RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE