Bales v. Ada County et al
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Discovery Plan 41 proposed by the plaintiff is hereby ADOPTED by the Court. 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 (st)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
RAYNE BALES (f/k/a RAYNE AHO),
an individual,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00299-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
vs.
CITY OF BOISE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiff Rayne Bales claims that Boise City and two of its police officers violated
her constitutional rights when they arrested and jailed her on the mistaken belief she was
violating several No Contact Orders (NCOs). In fact, the NCOs had been dismissed eight
months before Bales was arrested on August 4, 2013. Despite having access to this
evidence, the officers delayed releasing Bales for many hours, she alleges.
Bales originally sued a number of police officers, Ada County, Canyon County,
and the City of Boise. She alleged claims for (1) unlawful search and seizure under 42
U.S.C. § 1983; (2) unlawful search and seizure under state law; (3) excessive force under
42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) negligence under state law; (5) false arrest and imprisonment under
state law; and (6) failure to adequately train and supervise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Bales later agreed to dismiss several of the officers, Ada County, Canyon County,
and her state law claims. The case is now proceeding only against the City of Boise and
its two officers on the federal claims.
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1
The parties were unable to agree on a discovery plan and have submitted their
proposals for the Court to resolve. They were able to agree that only ESI created or
received between August 4, 2013, and August 5, 2016 will be preserved. Their dispute
centers largely on the level of detail that should go into the discovery plan – the plaintiff
wants more detail while the defendants seek less.
For example, in identifying the material to be preserved (that was created during
the agreed-upon three-year period between 2013 and 2016) the defense proposes to
preserve “ESI which is relevant to the issues in this case,” while the plaintiff proposes to
preserve certain specific material (emails, texts, and electronic data relating to Bale’s
arrest) from five named custodians stored in four specifically-identified data bases. The
plaintiff also describes the eight subjects she intends to focus on during discovery.
The plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan is a model of clarity and focus – it is the
opposite of a fishing expedition. It appears limited to issues directly relevant to her
claims. While the defense might later raise specific proportionality defenses – such as
that the costs of certain aspects of the plan outweigh the benefits – those flaws are not
apparent on the face of the plan at this time.
The Court will therefore adopt plaintiff’s proposed discovery plan. This adoption
is without prejudice to the defendants’ right to raise specific objections as discovery
proceeds.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Discovery Plan (docket
no. 41) proposed by the plaintiff is hereby ADOPTED by the Court.
DATED: July 11, 2016
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?