Van Orden et al v. Caribou County et al

Filing 71

ORDER ON MOTION TO CLARIFY AND FOR RECONSIDERATION denying 67 Motion to Clarify Order on Motions to Compel and to Limit Discovery and Motion for Reconsideration; clarifying 66 Order on Motions to Compel and 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-00385-BLW

ORDER ON MOTION TO CLARIFY
AND FOR RECONSIDERATION

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 is Defendants’ Motion to Clarify Order and for Reconsideration
(Dkt. 67) of Order on Motions to Compel and to Limit Discovery (Dkt. 66). Having

ORDER ON MOTION TO CLARIFY AND RECONSIDER - 1

reviewed the Motion and attachments and being familiar with the record, the Court will
deny the Motion and Clarify its Order as follows.
LEGAL STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION
Reconsideration of a court’s prior ruling is appropriate “if (1) the district court is
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or
made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change
in controlling law.” S.E.C. v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th
Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). If the motion to reconsider does not fall within one of these
three categories, it must be denied.
DISCUSSION
The parties each filed discovery motions, with permission from the Court, on an
expedited timeline. Plaintiffs sought to compel discovery (Dkt. 62), and Defendants
sought to limit discovery (Dkt. 63). In its decision, the Court determined that jail
inspection reports requested by Plaintiffs, “to the extent they bear upon staffing decisions,
have fairly obvious relevance to Plaintiffs’ action.” Order, Dkt. 66 at 3. In so finding,
the Court noted Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants “were aware of risks posed by
understaffing in the jail.” Id. (citing Pl’s. Br., Dkt. 62 at 5).
As noted by Defendants in its Motion to Clarify and for Reconsideration,
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Dkt. 52) does not specifically assert understaffing.
However, Plaintiffs allege numerous deficiencies with the jail’s staffing, asserting
negligence in policies to address inmate medical needs, and also negligence as to the

ORDER ON MOTION TO CLARIFY AND RECONSIDER - 2

training, direction, supervision, assignment, and entrustment of employees. Am. Compl.,
Dkt. 52. The Court now clarifies that, in finding that the jail inspection reports are
relevant, the Court recognizes a connection between Plaintiffs’ allegations of negligent
staffing – whether or not such allegations refer to adequacy of the number of staff, and
evidence that may be discovered in jail inspection reports.
In the Motion to Reconsider, Defendants assert error as grounds for
reconsideration. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to plead a valid inadequate
staffing claim under § 1983. The Court disagrees. For reasons expressed above, the
Court finds that Plaintiffs have asserted a cognizable claim of inadequate staffing so as to
warrant the Court’s Order compelling production of jail inspection reports for the years
2000 through 2004, not previously provided. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration will be denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Court clarifies its Order (Dkt. 66) as set forth above.

2.

Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 67) is DENIED.

DATED: September 20, 2011

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

ORDER ON MOTION TO CLARIFY AND RECONSIDER - 3