Harris v. Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 32

ORDER directing counsel to secure copies of any incident report and file with the Clerk within 30 days from the date of this Order. (Compliance due by 7/4/2018). Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 6/4/18. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ERIC LATROY HARRIS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SCMPD (CNT AGENTS),
Defendants.

CV417-154

ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Eric Harris brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case to
recover for injuries that he allegedly suffered as a result of the use of
excessive force during his arrest.
Complaint).

See, e.g., doc. 8 at 5 (Amended

He is proceeding without counsel.

Chatham County,

Georgia and the City of Savannah, Georgia responded to his Complaint,
asserting various defenses. Doc. 16 (Answer). Their response, however,
did not identify the officers allegedly involved. See id. at 1 (responding
on behalf of “CNT Agent 1, and CNT Agent 2”). The Court, therefore,
directed counsel for the responding defendants to provide Harris with
limited discovery so that he might identify the officers he contends
exerted excessive force. Doc. 27.

The defendants complied and provided documentation of Harris’
arrest. See doc. 28-1 (police reports). The Court then directed Harris to
amend his Complaint and identify the officers. Doc. 30. Within the time
provided for that amendment, he has responded, protesting that he is
unable to identify the officers from the discovery materials. Doc. 31. He
notes that defendants’ prior response undertook to provide recordings of
his arrest, which he now seeks in an effort to identify the officers and
comply with the Court’s Order. Compare doc. 28 at 1 (explaining that
recordings are not in defendants’ possession or control, but that
defendants were “attempting to locate any audio/video and, if any, . . .
provide[ it] by supplemental response”), with doc. 31 at 1 (repeating
Harris’ requests for “a copy of the actual audio/video footage from his
arrest . . . as well as a narrative of the video.”).
The Court might construe Harris’ most recent filings in a number
of ways: as a motion for an extension of time to comply with its
amendment order until after production of the recordings, or as a motion
to compel their production. Regardless of its technical construction, his
most recent filing seeks the same identity information he sought before.
See doc. 31 at 2 (“Harris is also request [sic] the Defendant to reveal the

2

identity of the 2 Agents that led Harris out of the house.”). He has,
however, made a good-faith attempt to clarify their identities based on
the materials provided: he now clearly alleges that the officers, referred
to (but not named) in an internal police report, are the officers who
exerted the excessive force. See doc. 31 at 1 (“Lt. Gunditch [sic] reports
only indicate the contact he witnessed outside of the house. The 2 Agents
in his report are the same Agents that are accused of excessive force.”
(emphasis added)).1
Again, the Court is confronted by the prospect of Plaintiff’s service
of a Rule 45 subpoena on Lt. Gundich, or the use of some other discovery
device, to determine whether he can provide any further information
concerning the relevant officers’ identities.

Before undertaking that

process, however, the Court will again call upon counsel for the speciallyappearing defendants. The Court DIRECTS counsel who prepared the

1

The report identifies the CNT agents who were present when Harris was arrested.
See doc. 28-1 at 5. Although Harris continues to refer to the officers who subjected
him to excessive force as “agents,” implying CNT agents, the documents provided
suggest, on the contrary, that they were SWAT officers. See id. (“I (Lt[.] Gundich)
was on scene during the warrant and observed Mr. Harris led out of the house by
SWAT and turned over to CNT agents.” (emphasis added)). None of the documents
provided include any names of SWAT officers. See generally doc. 28-1. Thus, it is
unclear whether, as defendants’ response contends, the reports provided include “[a]
list of all officers that entered the residence . . . and participated in detaining and
arresting Eric Harris on 7/13/2017.” Doc. 28-1 at 1.
3

limited Answer on behalf of the City and County to secure copies of any
incident reports or other documents reflecting the identities of the
SWAT officers present during the relevant events of July 13, 2017. If the
officers’ identities are not recorded in any document, counsel may simply
disclose their identities (if known to them) or identify a proper official in
the SWAT command who can appear for a court-supervised deposition
pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P. 30 or who can answer a focused set of written
questions posed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31.2 Counsel should file
copies of the documents or report with the Clerk within thirty days from
the date of this Order. If the responding parties believe the records or
report contain information which should be protected from public
disclosure, they are free to request that the documents be sealed,
pursuant to the Court’s Local Rule 79.7.
2

The identities of the two SWAT officers are knowable, that knowledge is almost
certainly within the possession of the City or County law enforcement officials, and
the Court will see to it that that knowledge is disclosed to the Plaintiff. The use of
Civil Rules 30, 31, and 45 can be cumbersome, costly, and time-consuming,
particularly when those tools are placed in the hands of a pro se litigant. Both the
Court and the parties have a duty “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. If a formal
deposition (or series of depositions) in the courtroom is needed in this case, then that
is what we will have. But the Court is satisfied that the able and highly professional
attorneys who have appeared in this case for the defense, as well as the clients they
represent, will much prefer a more informal mechanism for providing Plaintiff with
the core information that he is clearly entitled to receive -- the names of the specific
officers who allegedly mistreated him at the time of his arrest. Let us get past this
hurdle as speedily and inexpensively as we can.
4

SO ORDERED, this 4th day of June, 2018.

5