Lovelace et al v. Gibson et al

Filing 68

OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Defendants Adam Gibson, Robert Copely, John Summers, Dina Dreyer, Anjanette Biswell, and the City of Quincy, Illinois' Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Continued Deposition [ 61] and Defendants Gary Farha, Coroner James Keller, and Adams County, Illinois Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Continued Deposition 62 are ALLOWED. See written order. Plaintiff Curtis Lovelace is ordered to make himself available for three additional hours of deposition questioning at a time and place agreed upon by the parties. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 13 August, 2018 09:32:51 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, PEORIA DIVISION
CURTIS LOVELACE, LOGAN
LOVELACE, LINCOLN
LOVELACE, and CHRISTINE
LOVELACE on behalf of her
minor son LARSON LOVELACE
Plaintiffs,
v.
DET. ADAM GIBSON,
POLICE CHIEF ROBERT
COPLEY, SGT. JOHN
SUMMERS, LT. DINA
DREYER, DET.
ANJANETTE BISWELL,
UNKNOWN QUINCY POLICE
OFFICERS, GARY FARHA,
CORONER JAMES KELLER,
THE CITY OF QUINCY,
and COUNTY OF ADAMS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17-cv-1201

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Adam Gibson,
Robert Copely, John Summers, Dina Dreyer, Anjanette Biswell, and the
City of Quincy, Illinois’s (collectively Quincy Defendants) Motion to Compel
Plaintiff to Appear for Continued Deposition (d/e 61) (Motion 61) and
Defendants Gary Farha, Coroner James Keller, and Adams County, Illinois’
Page 1 of 7

(Collectively Adams County Defendants) Motion to Compel Plaintiff to
Appear for Continued Deposition (d/e 62) (collectively Motions). The
Defendants deposed Plaintiff Curtis Lovelace for slightly more than seven
hours. The Defendants ask the Court to compel Curtis Lovelace to appear
and be deposed for an additional three hours. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motions are ALLOWED.
BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2006, Plaintiff Curtis Lovelace’s wife Cory died at
their home in Quincy, Illinois. At that time, Curtis and Cory had four
children, a daughter Lyndsay, and three sons Logan and Lincoln, and
Larson. On August 27, 2014, Curtis Lovelace was arrested and charged
with murdering Cory in 2006. Curtis was tried twice for the alleged murder.
The first trial resulted in a hung jury in 2016 and the second trial resulted in
an acquittal in 2017. During this time, Curtis was held in jail for 21 months
before the first trial, and was placed on home confinement for nine months
between the two trials. The Plaintiffs allege,
This experience almost destroyed [Curtis Lovelace’s] family. It
did destroy his personal finances, his law practice, and his
reputation in the town he was born in, had lived in almost his
entire life, and had served as a public official in various
capacities. Curt and his family were ostracized from Quincy,
and after his acquittal, Curt and his family had to leave town.
Curt must start his life over as a 48-year-old man.
Page 2 of 7

Complaint (d/e 1) ¶ 3. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired
to subject Curtis Lovelace to this ordeal in violation of his Constitutional
rights. See Complaint, ¶¶ 1-6. The Plaintiffs also bring Monell claims for
municipal liability against the City of Quincy, Illinois (Quincy) and Adams
County, Illinois (Adams County) in these Counts. See Monell v.
Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 693-95
(1978).
The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants violated the rights of his
three sons Logan, Lincoln, and Larson Lovelace by illegally detaining them
after their father’s arrest in 2014 by detaining them wrongfully and
wrongfully attempting to coerce them into providing false testimony against
their father. Complaint, ¶¶ 39-43.
The Plaintiffs also allege state law claims for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, respondeat
superior, and indemnification. Complaint, ¶¶ 7-11.
On June 6, 2018, the Defendants deposed Curtis Lovelace. The
deposition covered all aspects of Curtis Lovelace’s life. Curtis Lovelace
was quite loquacious and gave extensive answers to many questions. The
attorney for the Quincy Defendants asked from 9:24 a.m. until 2:52 p.m. At
that time, he stopped to allow the attorney for the Adams County
Page 3 of 7

Defendants to ask questions. The attorney for the Quincy Defendants
stated that he was not finished with his questions. The defense attorneys
noted that Curtis Lovelace’s long answers had taken a significant amount
of time, although they did not believe he was trying to stall or just use up
the available time. Both defense attorneys stated that they would not finish
in seven hours. The defense attorneys suggested completing a full seven
hours of questioning at that time and then resuming the deposition at a
later date. Curtis Lovelace and his counsel would not agree at that point.
Motion 61, Exhibit A, Deposition of Curtis Lovelace (Lovelace Deposition),
at 205-06. Curtis Lovelace later agreed to stay late that evening to answer
additional questions, but would not agree to resume the deposition at a
later day. Lovelace Deposition, at 284-90.
At 5:31 p.m., the Defendants’ attorneys announced that they could
continue the questioning that evening. The court reporter, however,
informed them that she could not stay late and was too fatigued to
continue. Curtis Lovelace would not agree to resume the deposition at a
later date. The Defense attorneys stated that they would seek an order
from the Court to require him to attend. Lovelace Deposition, at 320-23.
The deposition then ended and the Defendants filed the Motions.

Page 4 of 7

ANALYSIS
Whether to grant additional discovery is within the discretion of the
Court. Innomed Labs, LLC v. Alza Corp., 211 F.R.D. 237, 239 (S.D. N.Y.
2002). Unless the Court orders otherwise, witnesses, including the parties,
sit for a single deposition lasting seven hours. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2) and
(d)(1). In considering a motion for a second deposition, this Court should
consider whether: “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking
discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery
in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted
by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii). Rule 26(b)(1) states that
parties may obtain discovery of non-privileged material that is relevant to
the claim and proportional to the needs of the case. The Defendants must
demonstrate a need for the additional hours of deposition testimony from
Curtis Lovelace. Rule 26(b)(2)(C). See Innomed Labs, LLC, 211 F.R.D. at
239.
The Court has carefully reviewed the transcript of Curtis Lovelace’s
deposition in light of the allegations in the Complaint. The Court finds that
the request for additional deposition testimony is proportional to the needs
Page 5 of 7

of the case and is likely to produce relevant evidence or information that
would lead to relevant evidence. The Court further finds that the additional
deposition testimony would not be cumulative or duplicative and that it
could not be reasonably obtained from another source or through other
means. The Court further finds that the Defendants did not have sufficient
opportunity to complete their questioning of Curtis Lovelace.
Lovelace has sued seven individuals and two municipalities alleging a
vast conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. He has alleged that the
Defendants “almost destroyed his family,” and “did destroy his personal
finances, his law practice, and his reputation in the town he was born in,
had lived in almost his entire life, and had served as a public official in
various capacities.” Curtis Lovelace, thereby, put at issue virtually his
entire personal and professional life. These defendants are entitled to
discover information about all of these aspects of the allegations against
them. The Defendants’ attorneys were methodically questioning him about
his entire personal and professional life. Gathering information over so
many aspects of a person’s life takes time. The defense attorneys did not
finish in the seven hours allotted. Seven hours proved not to be enough
time. Considering the significance of the charges levied by the Plaintiffs,

Page 6 of 7

the Defendants should be allowed the opportunity to complete the
examination.
The Court also finds that Curtis Lovelace’s extended answers
consumed much of the time, and so, did not allow the defense counsel time
to finish. The Court finds that Curtis Lovelace was not trying to stall or “run
out the clock.” Rather, he provided extensive, thoughtful answers. Those
answers, however, took time. The Court finds that Defendants are entitled
to finish their questioning. The Court agrees that three hours is a
reasonable amount of additional time under the circumstances.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Adam Gibson,
Robert Copely, John Summers, Dina Dreyer, Anjanette Biswell, and the
City of Quincy, Illinois’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for Continued
Deposition (d/e 61) and Defendants Gary Farha, Coroner James Keller,
and Adams County, Illinois’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for
Continued Deposition (d/e 62) are ALLOWED. Plaintiff Curtis Lovelace is
ordered to make himself available for three additional hours of deposition
questioning at a time and place agreed upon by the parties.
ENTER: August 13, 2018
s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 7 of 7