Van Orden et al v. Caribou County et al

Filing 66

ORDER on Motions to Compel and to Limit Discovery granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion to Compel; denying 62 Motion for Discovery Sanctions; denying 63 Motion to Limit Discovery. 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

ALAN K. VAN ORDEN, Personal
Representative of the Estate of Crystal Rhea
Bannister; ROBERT BANNISTER, a legal
heir of Crystal R. Bannister; and
MICHELLE WALESKE, a legal heir of
Crystal R. Bannister,

Case No. 4:10-cv-385-BLW
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO
COMPEL AND TO LIMIT
DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs,
v.
CARIBOU COUNTY; CARIBOU
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;
RIC L. ANDERSON, in his individual and
official capacities; MICHAEL HADERLIE,
in his individual and official capacities;
BROCK LOPEZ, in his individual and
official capacities; HEATH S. DOWNS;
BRANDY BREDEHOFT; JUDY
PROBART LONG; JODI SUTER; BRETT
SMITH; and JOHN DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 62), and Defendants’
Motion to Limit Discovery (Dkt. 63). On July 20, 2011, the Court conducted an informal
telephone conference at the parties’ request, regarding discovery disputes in this matter.
The Court set expedited deadlines for briefing, with which the parties have complied. The
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Court having reviewed the pleadings and being familiar with the record, now enters the
following order, granting in part, and denying in part, the parties’ motions.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs first served discovery requests on Defendants in November 2010,
including requests for the Idaho Sheriff’s Association’s inspections of the Caribou County
Jail from 2000 to the present. Defendants have now provided documents responsive to
this request from 2005 to the present. Defendants assert that documents prior to 2005 are
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they
concern a different facility; the facility at issue in this case, where Crystal Bannister
committed suicide in August 2009, was newly built in 2005 and differs from the older
Canyon County Jail in its “funding[,] . . . layout, operations, staffing, and purpose.” Def.
Br., Dkt. 63 at 4.
Plaintiffs contend that the physical differences between the old and new jail
facilities should not preclude their requested discovery. The admissibility inquiry should
be guided instead – Plaintiffs maintain – by what Plaintiffs must show to prove their claims
under § 1983. Pl. Br., Dkt. 62 at 4. To establish liability of a municipality under § 1983,
a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) deprivation of a constitutional right, (2) a persistent and
widespread policy or custom that was the moving force behind the constitutional violation,
and (3) that the policy or custom amounted to deliberate indifference of the constitutional
right. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Svs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Mabe v.
San Bernardino Cy. Dept. of Pub. Soc. Svs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2001).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

According to Plaintiffs, the already-obtained discovery supports that Defendants
were aware of risks posed by understaffing in the jail, and also that Defendants had a
“long-standing practice or custom” of failing to properly staff the jail. Pl’s. Br., Dkt. 62 at
5. Plaintiffs argue that, in light of the broad scope of discovery permitted under rule 26,
the evidence supports that Plaintiffs’ request is reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Additionally, Plaintiffs
assert they are entitled to another 10 years of documents – from 1990 to 2000. Plaintiffs
further request discovery sanctions against Defendants under Rule 37, in the form of
attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of Plaintiffs’ inability to obtain complete and
timely responses to their discovery requests.
The Court finds that sanctions are not warranted here, as Defendants appear to have
acted in good faith. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiffs’ requests for discovery
sanctions against Defendants. However, the Court notes that the documents, to the extent
they bear upon staffing decisions, have fairly obvious relevance to Plaintiffs’ action. The
Court expects the parties to continue working in good faith toward timely resolution of
discovery disputes if and when they arise.
With respect to the request for documents pertaining to jail inspection reports, the
Court agrees with Plaintiffs that additional discovery of inspection reports for the prior
Caribou County Jail is appropriate. However, the Court finds that the significance and
admissibility of such reports diminishes over time. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiffs
request for discovery responsive to Interrogatories 56 – 59, for years 2000 through 2004.
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND TO LIMIT DISCOVERY - 3

But before Defendants would be required to provide reports older than 2000, Plaintiffs
must make specific showings to the Court that such additional discovery is likely to lead to
admissible evidence. At this time, the likelihood that discovery prior to 2000 would be
permitted is dubious at best.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 62) is DENIED in part, and GRANTED
in part. Defendant’s Motion to Limit Discovery (Dkt. 63) is DENIED in part,
GRANTED in part.

2.

Defendants shall provide discovery responsive to Interrogatories 56-59, for
years 2000 through 2004. Defendants shall not be required to provide
discovery responsive to the request for any time prior to 2000 unless and until
Plaintiffs provide more specific evidence to the Court that further responses are
likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

3.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery Sanctions (Dkt. 62) is DENIED.
DATED: August 29, 2011

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND TO LIMIT DISCOVERY - 4