HORTON v. ENIGMA GEORGIA et al

Filing 89

ORDER denying 88 Motion to Compel. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 10/9/2015. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

DARRELL HORTON,
as Temporary Administrator of the
Estate
of
MATTHEW
DEAN
HORTON,
Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-31 (HL)
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF ENIGMA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 88),
pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37.

Plaintiff seeks an Order from the Court

compelling Defendant Israel Timothy Rutland to answer an interrogatory to which
Rutland previously asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. Defendant argues that the privilege is implicated by the questions
in the interrogatory, and he should therefore not be compelled to answer the
interrogatory. For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is
denied.
I.

BACKGROUND

On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff was killed when a vehicle driven by
Rutland struck Plaintiff’s vehicle. At the time of the wreck, Rutland was eluding
officers from several local police agencies in a high speed chase.

After the

wreck, officers suspected that Rutland was intoxicated due to the strong smell of
alcohol on Rutland’s breath.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation later

determined that Rutland’s Blood Alcohol Content at the time of the accident was
0.082. Officers concluded that Rutland’s intoxication was a contributing cause of
the wreck.

Rutland has been charged with a plethora of felonies and

misdemeanors in connection with the wreck, and the resulting criminal case is
still pending.
As a result of the wreck, Plaintiff filed this civil suit in March of 2014.
Plaintiff sent discovery requests to Rutland simultaneously with the Complaint.
Rutland responded to these requests in August of 2014. At issue in this Motion
to Compel is Rutland’s response to Interrogatory Number 5 (the “Interrogatory”),
which reads as follows:
5.
Concerning any alcoholic beverages consumed by you within
twenty-four hours of the incident referred to in the Complaint, please
state the type and quantity of the alcoholic beverage(s) consumed;
the period of time over which said alcoholic beverage(s) were
consumed; the name and address of each establishment or
individual upon whose premises such alcoholic beverages were
purchased and/or consumed.
RESPONSE:
As there are criminal charges currently pending against him arising
out of the subject incident, defendant Rutland asserts his 5th
Amendment right.
Defendant objected to this request on the grounds that providing this information
would violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

2

Plaintiff later scheduled and noticed Rutland’s deposition, to be taken on
July 24, 2014. In addition to the attorneys representing the parties in this civil
action, Rutland’s criminal defense attorney, Chevene King, was present. When
Plaintiff stated his intent to ask Rutland questions about where he obtained the
alcohol he drank on the day of the wreck, Mr. King asserted Rutland’s Fifth
Amendment privilege on his behalf, and indicated that Rutland would refuse to
answer any of Plaintiff’s questions during the deposition. Plaintiff’s attorney left
the deposition without asking any specific questions of Rutland. Plaintiff now
seeks the Court’s help in compelling Rutland to answer the Interrogatory.
II.

ANALYSIS

The Fifth Amendment provides in part that “[n]o person * * * shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const.
amend. V. The Supreme Court has declared that the privilege extends not only
to answers that would themselves support a criminal conviction, but also to
answers that would “furnish a link in the chain of evidence” needed to prosecute.
Begner v. State Ethics Com’n, 250 Ga. App. 327, 330 (2001) (citing Hoffman v.
United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)).
It is for the court to determine whether an individual’s invocation of the Fifth
Amendment is justified, and to what extent. Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486. The
witness is “not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in
doing so he would incriminate himself.” Id. Rather, to sustain the privilege, it
“need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which
3

it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it
cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could
result.” Id. at 486–87.
The Court concludes from the implications of the questions included in the
Interrogatory and the criminal charges Rutland is facing that Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory, if answered, may result in injurious disclosure.

Mr. Rutland is

suspected of intoxication that was a contributing factor to the wreck at issue in
this civil suit. Any admissions regarding the amount of alcohol he consumed the
day of the accident and the time of consumption may further incriminate Rutland.
In addition, admissions regarding the name and address of any establishment or
individual upon whose premises alcoholic beverages were purchased and/or
consumed may provide a “link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute.”
See Begner, 250 Ga. App. at 330. The Fifth Amendment’s privilege against selfincrimination is implicated by the questions asked in Plaintiff’s Interrogatory.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
(Doc. 88).
SO ORDERED, this the 9th day of October, 2015.
/s/ Hugh Lawson_________________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
les

4