Thielmann et al v. Donahue et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 16 Motion for Summary Judgment granting 24 Motion to Defer Consideration of Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

SAMUEL THIEMANN; JOSEPH
ZAHN;WILLIAM WILLIAMS; NORM
SELLARS;GARY KAESTNER; JACOB
MACDONALD;LESLIE GOODMAN;
GARY BRANT; LYNNLEE; MICHAEL
SNIDER; DANIEL BUGLI;DON
FLEDERBACH,

Plaintiffs,
v.
SHERIFF KIERAN DONAHUE;
DOUGLAS HART, Special Agent of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation; JOHN
AND JANE DOES #1-10, members of
the Treasure Valley Metro Violent
Crimes and Gang Task Force; JOHN
DOES #11-20, members of the
Nampa Police Department; JOHN DOES
#21-30, members of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives; JOHN DOES #31-40,
members of the Canyon County Sheriff’s
Office; JOHN DOES #41-50, members
of the Federal Bureau of Investigations;
CANYON COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Idaho, by and
through the Canyon County Sheriff’s
Office; CITY OF NAMPA, by and
through the Nampa Police Department,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Case No. 4:14-CV-00172-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Before the Court are: (1) Defendants Sheriff Kieran Donahue, Canyon County,
and City of Nampa’s (collectively, “Canyon County Defendants”) Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. 16) and (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Defer Consideration of Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 24). For the reasons set forth below the Court will grant the
Plaintiff’s motion and defer consideration of the Canyon County Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are twelve individuals who are also members of the Brother Speed
Motorcycle Club. Plaintiffs allege that their rights under state and federal law were
violated during a raid of their Nampa clubhouse on August 28, 2013, by the Treasure
Valley Metro Violent Crimes and Game Task Force (the “Task Force”).
The raid was conducted as part of the Task Force’s investigation into Timothy
Butterbaugh, who was a member of the Road Brothers Motorcycle Club. Chief
Magistrate Judge Candy Dale issued a search warrant that authorized searches of
Butterbaugh’s house, the Road Brothers’ clubhouse, the Brother Speed clubhouse, and a
1991 Ford Ranger. Search Warrant, Ex. A to Pls’ Compl., Dkt. 5-1. Plaintiffs believe that
the Task Force used the same or very similar information to support the search warrant
applications for all four locations.
Apparently, the raid of the Brother Speed clubhouse was executed in a military
fashion, with percussion grenades, smoke, and “overwhelming numbers.” The Task Force
officers who participated in the raid wore riot gear and did not identify themselves.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Plaintiffs, however, learned from media reports and public records that the Task Force is
a partnership of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers. A Department of
Justice press release announcing the arrest of Timothy Butterbaugh indicated that the
Canyon County Sheriff’s Office and Nampa City Police Department assisted in serving
the warrants: “[t]he warrants were served by the FBI, Treasure Valley Metro Violent
Crime Task Force, Canyon County Sheriff’s Office, Nampa City Police Department, and
Meridian City Police Department.” Federal Bureau of Investigation website, “Nampa
Man Arrested on Federal Drug Charge,” http://www.fbi.gov/saltlakecity/pressreleases/2013/nampa-man-arrested-on-federal-drug-charge.
Based on these reports, Plaintiffs believed that the Canyon County Sheriff’s Office
and the Nampa Police Department assisted federal officers in preparing, planning, and
executing the raid. For this reason, Plaintiff named Sheriff Donahue, Canyon County, and
the City of Nampa as defendants, as well as unidentified (John and Jane Doe) federal,
county, and city law enforcement officers.
On September 15, 2014 – the morning of the day set for the initial scheduling
conference – the City and County Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
alleging that they did not participate in the search warrant process or execution. Defs’
Opening Br. at 2, Dkt. 16-1. They imply that only federal officers served the warrant and
conducted the raid. At the time the City and County Defendants filed their summaryjudgment motion, no discovery had been exchanged between the parties.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Within a week of the scheduling conference, Plaintiffs submitted written
interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Sheriff Kieran Donahue and
Nampa Chief of Police Craig Kingsbury, on behalf of the City of Nampa. Durham Decl.,
Exs A and B, Dkt. 24-2. Plaintiffs request information and documents to identify Canyon
County Sheriff’s deputies and City of Nampa police officers who have worked with the
Task Force within the last three years, and more specifically who partnered with the Task
Force in its investigation in this case. Id.
On October 8, the United States Government filed a Motion to Intervene and a
Motion for Temporary Stay of Discovery. The Government seeks to intervene so that it
can present an argument to the Court for staying discovery for six months until an
ongoing criminal investigation is completed. The Government’s motion to intervene has
been granted for the limited purpose of arguing its motion to stay discovery. The motion
to stay is still pending.
On October 16, 2015, after having been given leave to amend, Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint naming FBI Special Agent Douglas Hart as a defendant, to bring an
identified federal defendant into the case.
Now Plaintiffs request the Court to defer consideration of the City and County
Defendants’ summary-judgment motion, “for two reasons: (1) Plaintiffs need to complete
discovery in order to oppose Defendants’ Motion, and (2) the Government is now
attempting to intervene and delay the exchange of that discovery.” Pls’ Opening Br. at 4,
Dkt. 24-1.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

ANALYSIS
Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to defer
consideration of a motion for summary judgment, and allow time for discovery, when a
party can show that it is presently unable to present facts essential to justify its
opposition. See, e.g., Emp'rs Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v.
Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted)(reviewing the
previous version in Rule 56(f)). The party seeking a Rule 56(d) continuance must also
demonstrate that it has diligently pursued discovery and that it cannot respond without a
delay. See Pfingston v. Ronan Engineering Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2002).
The Court will grant Plaintiffs’ request to defer consideration of the City and
County Defendant’s summary-judgment motion. The City and County Defendants filed
their motion extremely early in this case – before even the scheduling conference had
been conducted – and before Plaintiffs had the opportunity to conduct any discovery. At
some juncture it may be appropriate to dismiss the City and County Defendants from this
case, but now is not that time. Plaintiffs have stated a colorable claim against the City and
County Defendants, and there are reports indicating that the City and County partnered
with federal law enforcement officers in conducting the relevant investigation and raid.
Plaintiffs are entitled to explore their claims against the City and County.
With respect to the Government’s motion for a temporary stay on discovery, the
Court is inclined to grant it. However, the Court believes a conference with counsel for
Plaintiffs, as well as for the Government and the City and County Defendants, would be
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

beneficial to determ the app
mine
propriate sc
cope and tim
ming of the stay. If nec
cessary, the
Court may conduct a portion of the confe
m
t
o
erence ex pa
arte, withou the involv
ut
vement of
Plaintiff counsel. Therefore, in lieu of hearing the C and Co
fs’
h
City
ounty Defendants’
summary
y-judgment motion on December 2, the Cou will hear oral argum on the
t
n
r
urt
r
ment
motion to stay disco
t
overy.
ORDER
R
IT IS ORDE
T
ERED that
t:
1. Defenda Sheriff Kieran Don
ants
f
nahue, Can
nyon County and City of Nampa’s
y,
(collectiv
vely, “Cany County Defendants Motion for Summa Judgme
yon
s”)
ary
ent
(Dkt. 16) is DENIED WITHOU PREJUD
)
D
UT
DICE.
2. Plaintiffs Motion to Defer Con
s’
o
nsideration of Motion for Summa Judgmen
ary
nt
(Dkt. 24) is GRANT
)
TED.

TED: Nove
DAT
ember 24, 2
2014

__________
__________
_____
___
B. L
Lynn Winm
mill
Chief Judge
ited
District Cou
urt
Uni States D

MEMORA
ANDUM DECIS
SION AND ORDER - 6
R