Powell, et al v. Barrett, et al

Filing 300

ORDER granting 296 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Reply, and the Court has considered Plaintiffs' Reply [269-1]. The Court VACATES its March 3, 2011 Order 290 to the extent it granted Plaintiffs Rule 56(d) Motion. Upon reconsider ation, Plaintiffs Rule 56(d) Motion 282 is DENIED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to respond to Section II.A of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 269 no later than 21 days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff shall also file a response to Defendants Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [269-2] as set forth by Local Rule 56(b)(2)(a)(2). Defendant shall have 14 days from the date of Plaintiffs response to file a reply. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 8/8/11. (cem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
C. ALLEN POWELL, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JACQUELINE H. BARRETT, ET
AL.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:04-CV-1100-RWS

ORDER
This case comes before the Court for a determination of the scope of
additional discovery and on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Reply [296].
As an initial matter, the Plaintiffs’ Motion [296] is GRANTED, and the
Court has considered Plaintiffs’ Reply [296-1].
Background
On November 11, 2010, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment [269] based on the defense of qualified immunity. In response,
Plaintiffs filed a Rule 56(d) Motion [282] arguing that they were unable to
present facts essential to justify their opposition to Defendant’s Motion.
Plaintiffs argued that in order to properly respond they needed information

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

regarding the releases of a broader number of inmates than just the named
Plaintiffs. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion [282] and allowed additional
discovery to obtain information on the extent of the over-detention problem.
(Dkt. [290] at 8). In that same Order [290], the Court granted Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment as to the AL and CR Classes, and denied the
Motion without prejudice as to the Over-Detention Class.
Pursuant to the Court’s Order [290], Defendant filed its Objections to
Additional Discovery [291] on March 20, 2011. Plaintiffs filed a Response
[292], to which Defendant filed a Reply [295], to which Plaintiffs filed a Reply
[296-1].
Discussion
Having examined the arguments set forth by parties in regards to the
scope of additional discovery, the Court agrees with the rationale set forth by
Defendant [291, 295] and will not allow Plaintiffs to take additional discovery.
In particular, Defendant admits that she was aware of a significant backlog of
releases during late 2003 and early 2004. As a result of this knowledge, she
asserts that she “took significant steps to address it at a systemic level.” (Dkt.
[291] at 3). Because she took these steps, Defendant argues that she was not

2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

deliberately indifferent to the problem and therefore is protected by qualified
immunity and entitled to summary judgment.
The Court stated in its Order:
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government
officials performing discretionary functions may not be held
individually liable for civil damages unless their conduct violates
“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known.” Lassiter v. Alabama, 28
F.3d 1146, 1149 (11th Cir.1994)(en banc) (quoting Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396
(1982)) The court may ascertain whether this standard has been
met by making two determinations: (1) whether the defendant
committed a violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and
(2) whether the violation was governed by clearly established law.
See West v. Tillman, 496 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d
272 (2001)). In addition, where the plaintiff seeks to hold the
defendant liable for acts not taken by the defendant personally but
by staff under the defendant’s supervision, the plaintiff must show
that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the
plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id.
(Dkt. [290] at 5-6 (footnote omitted)). Defendant argues that additional
discovery as to the extent of the over-detention problem is irrelevant for three
reasons: (1) Defendant was aware, and thus admits, that a significant backlog of
releases existed; (2) she took steps to remedy this problem and thus was not
deliberately indifferent to it; and (3) any violation of constitutional rights
resulting from the over-detention was not governed by clearly established law.

3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Plaintiffs respond [292] by proposing three primary areas of additional
discovery, only one of which addresses the contentions set forth in Defendant’s
Objections [291]. On that ground, Plaintiff proposes an extension of discovery
on the remedial steps taken by Defendant stating:
Plaintiffs propose depositions of persons with information of
actual steps defendant took to resolve over-detentions. When
plaintiffs deposed defendant plaintiffs did not have the benefit of
signed responses. When plaintiffs deposed Mr. Lane (the jailer)
defendant’s interrogatory responses had not listed these steps as
affirmative defenses and so plaintiffs did not focus the deposition
on these issues. Barrett Supplemental interrogatory Responses,
interrogatory # 3 (attached). This is why defendant had to submit
affidavits on these issues rather than relying on deposition
testimony. Moreover, to the extent that defendant contends that the
over-detention rate when down as a result of her hiring Mr. Lane
plaintiffs need discovery on this issue too.
(Dkt. [292] at 4). The Court finds that Plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to
explore the actions taken by Defendant to remedy the over-detention problem.
Defendant’s Supplemental Response to Interrogatories states in response
to interrogatory number 3, which sought identification of each defense she
intended to assert, “[Defendant] asserts and relies upon the affirmative defense
of qualified immunity.” (Dkt. [292-1] at 10). Defendant’s answer to this
interrogatory also states:
During her tenure as sheriff, Defendant implemented many
procedures and practices to improve the efficiency of the release
4
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

process, such as borrowing personnel from the courts; exchanging
some sworn positions for more civilian positions; requesting
judges' staff to fax all orders to one standard number; ceasing to
fingerprint Atlanta Police Department arrestees on the APD
system; implementing jail-based first appearance hearings; crosstraining personnel; amending paperwork with an inmate's real
name, as it takes additional time to process each alias; etc.
(Id. at 15-16). Defendant’s Supplemental Response [292-1] was filed on April
2, 2010, more than two months before Plaintiffs deposed Mr. Lane. Therefore,
Plaintiffs contention that “[w]hen plaintiffs deposed Mr. Lane (the jailer)
defendant’s interrogatory responses had not listed these steps as affirmative
defenses and so plaintiffs did not focus the deposition on these issues,” is
untenable. (Dkt. [292] at 3). Plaintiffs were on notice that Defendant intended
to assert the defense of qualified immunity and intended to argue that she took
steps to improve the backlog of over-detained inmates. Plaintiffs chose not to
focus on the remedial steps taken in its deposition of Mr. Lane, and the Court
will not now allow them additional time to do so.1 The Court will also not
allow any of the other additional discovery sought by Plaintiffs, because the

1

Plaintiffs assert that they could not discover this defense because Defendant
produced 122 pages of documents pertaining to remedial steps taken by Mr. Lane only
two days before his deposition. Even assuming that two days was an insufficient
amount of time to properly process the newly produced documents, Plaintiff was
nonetheless on notice of Defendant’s defense no later than the first week of April
2010–more than two months before Mr. Lane’s deposition.
5
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Court does not find that it is necessary to respond to Defendant’s claim of
qualified immunity as to the Over-Detention Class.
Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court VACATES its March 3, 2011
Order [290] to the extent it granted Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) Motion. Upon
reconsideration, Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) Motion [282] is DENIED. Plaintiffs are
ORDERED to respond to Section II.A of Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [269] no later than 21 days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff shall
also file a response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
[269-2] as set forth by Local Rule 56(b)(2)(a)(2). Defendant shall have 14 days
from the date of Plaintiffs’ response to file a reply.
SO ORDERED, this 8th

day of August, 2011.

_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)