Janssen v. Howse et al
Filing
27
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Certain Documents 23 is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants are ordered to provide documents for in camera review to the Court, and to provide answers and documents to Plaintiff by 7/22/2011. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 27 June, 2011 09:55:56 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
SHERRY JANSSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID HOWSE, NEIL WILLIAMSON,
and SANGAMON COUNTY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 09-CV-3340
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Sherry Janssen’s
Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Certain
Documents (d/e 23) (Motion). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion
is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
Janssen alleges § 1983 claims and supplemental state law claims
against Defendant Sangamon County, Illinois, Sheriff Neil Williamson and
Deputy Sheriff David Howse based on Howse’s alleged sexual assault of
Janssen. Janssen’s claims include a § 1983 municipal liability claim
against Sangamon County and Defendant Sangamon County Sheriff Neil
Williamson in his official capacity, pursuant to Monell v. Department of
Page 1 of 12
Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978)..
Janssen alleges, in part,
During Sheriff Williamson’s tenure as the Sheriff of Sangamon
County, the Sheriff’s Department has, with the knowledge and
tacit approval of Sheriff Williamson, developed a pattern and
practice of physically abusing citizens, having sex on the job,
and covering up or doing little or nothing to correct those
abuses when citizens have complained, event [sic] to the extent
of firing an officer who complained to Williamson about the
brutal conduct of a fellow officer. The pattern and practice
briefly came to light with the release, pursuant to Freedom of
Information requests, of certain internal affairs file relating to
the Sheriff’s Department in the wake of Gekas v. Williamson,
393 Ill. App. 3d 573 (4th Dist. 2009). However, in the wake of
the Gekas disclosures, Sheriff Williamson has again begun
routinely to deny such FOIA requests in violation of the plain
requirements of the Gekas case. The pattern and practice was
also admitted by Sgt. Pennington, the internal affairs
investigator who investigated Janssen’s complaint against
Deputy Howse. Sgt. Pennington not only cleared Deputy
Howse of wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in this
Complaint, but he told Janssen that it is not uncommon for
police officers to have sexual escapades during their shifts and
if the Sheriff’s Department fired every deputy who had sex on
the job, the Sheriff’s Department would have virtually no
deputies left. Defendants Sheriff Williamson and Sangamon
County thus had a widespread practice of allowing deputies to
have sex on the job and violating the rights of citizens that was
so permanent and well-settled as to constitute a custom or
usage with the force of law, even though there was no express
departmental policy or law authorizing the practice.
Complaint (d/e 1), Count II ¶ 14.
In July 2010, Janssen served interrogatories and requests to produce
on Defendants. Motion, Exhibits A and B, Plaintiff’s First Request for
Production of Documents, and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.
Page 2 of 12
Defendants objected to some of the interrogatories and document
requests. Motion, Exhibits C, and D, Objections to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Interrogatories, Defendants’ Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of
Interrogatories, and Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for
Production of Documents. Janssen’s counsel has certified that he has
conferred with defense counsel to resolve these objections, but some still
remain. Motion, ¶ 1. Janssen now moves to compel production of
documents responsive to certain disputed requests and answers to certain
interrogatories.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF DISCOVERY
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows parties to obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the
claim or defense of any party. Relevant information need not be
admissible at trial if the discovery appears to be reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The rule gives the district
courts broad discretion in matters relating to discovery. See Brown-Bey v.
United States, 720 F.2d 467, 470-471 (7th Cir.1983); Eggleston v. Chicago
Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union No. 130, U. A., 657 F.2d 890, 902
(7th Cir.1981); see also, Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, 775 F.2d 177, 183 (7th Cir.1985) (on review, courts of appeal will
only reverse a decision of a district court relating to discovery upon a clear
Page 3 of 12
showing of an abuse of discretion). “[I]f there is an objection the discovery
goes beyond material relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses, the Court
would become involved to determine whether the discovery is relevant to
the claims or defenses and, if not, whether good cause exists for
authorizing it so long as it is relevant to the subject matter of the action.
The good-cause standard warranting broader discovery is meant to be
flexible.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) Advisory Committee Notes, 2000
Amendment.
The federal discovery rules are to be construed broadly and liberally.
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); Jeffries v. LRP Publications,
Inc., 184 F.R.D. 262, 263 (E.D .Pa. 1999). Rule 26(b)(1) provides that the
“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . .,” but “[f]or good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter
involved in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The party opposing
discovery has the burden of proving that the requested discovery should be
disallowed. Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 653, 656 (D. Kan.
1999); Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co., Inc.,
132 F.R.D. 204, 207 (N.D. Ind. 1990); Flag Fables, Inc. v. Jean Ann’s
Country Flags and Crafts, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1165, 1186 (D. Mass. 1989).
Page 4 of 12
District Courts have broad discretion in discovery matters. Packman
v. Chicago Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628, 646 (7th Cir., 2001). A party must be
diligent in pursuing the perceived inadequacies in discovery and the trial
court does not abuse its discretion if a party untimely seeks to compel
inadequate discovery responses. Packman at 647. However, even an
untimely filed motion to compel may still be allowed if the party
demonstrates actual and substantial prejudice resulting from the denial of
discovery. Id. Remember, we are talking discovery, not admissibility at
trial. With these principles in mind, the Court addresses Janssen’s Motion.
ANALYSIS
I.
Requests to Produce
Janssen asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce documents
responsive to requests 5, 12, 13, 14 and 16. Motion, and Exhibit A,
Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents. The Court addresses
these interrogatories in order below.
A.
Request No. 5
Janssen requested Defendant Howse’s personnel file. The
Defendants withheld 23 pages of the file based on the Illinois Personnel
Record Review Act. The Defendants also object on relevance grounds.
The objection based on the Illinois Personnel Record Review Act is
overruled. Defendants argue that under Illinois law, the Sangamon County
Page 5 of 12
Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff’s Department) was not required to keep the
23 pages in the personnel file. That is irrelevant. Illinois law provides no
basis to exempt the documents from discovery in federal court. If the 23
pages were in the file, then they are responsive to the document request.
Defendants further argue that the documents are not relevant. The
Defendants state that the withheld documents concern discipline by
another employer that occurred more than ten years ago. The Court
directs the Defendants to provide the 23 pages to the Court for in camera
review. The Court will determine whether they are properly discoverable.
The Defendants also express concerns about Howse’s right to
confidentiality. Any concerns about confidentiality are addressed by the
protective orders in place. HIPAA Qualified Protective Order (d/e 10) and
Stipulated Protective Order (d/e 21) (collectively Protective Orders). If
Defendants believe the Protective Orders are inadequate, they may
propose amendments to improve the protections for confidential
information. The Defendants, however, are ordered to provide the
responsive documents to the Court for in camera review.
B.
Request No. 12
Document Request Number 12 asked for the complete file pertaining
to the dismissal of former Deputy Craig Anderson. The Defendants said no
documents existed because Anderson resigned. The Defendants are
Page 6 of 12
ordered to produce the complete file pertaining to the termination of the
employment of Anderson whether by dismissal or resignation. Anderson
complained to Williamson about Field Training Officer Deputy John
Gillette’s abusive comments and attitudes toward Janssen and members of
the public. See Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants Williamson’s and
Sangamon County’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (d/e 25)
(Reply), Exhibit B, Letter from Craig Anderson to Sheriff Williamson dated
May 15, 2005. Anderson’s employment then terminated. Janssen
presents evidence that Anderson was told to resign after he complained
about Gillette. Reply, Exhibit A, In re Anderson, Department Employment
Security Appeals Division Case No. AR-5029992A, Decision mailed August
1, 2005. Janssen, thus, has a basis to claim that Anderson was dismissed.
The Defendants are ordered to produce the file related to the termination of
Anderson’s employment. These documents are not to be used outside of
this litigation and are subject to the Protective Order entered herein.
The Defendants also object on relevance grounds. The objection is
overruled. Janssen alleges a custom and practice within the Sheriff’s
Department of abuse and violence toward the public. Information
regarding Anderson’s complaints and the subsequent termination of his
Page 7 of 12
employment is reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence
regarding this allegation.
The Defendants also complain that Janssen has presented no facts
to support her request. The party opposing discovery, however, has the
burden of proving that the requested discovery should be disallowed.
Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D. at 656. Thus, the Defendants
have the burden of proof on this issue, not Janssen. Janssen has further
provided a basis for the relevance of the request as explained above. The
Defendants are ordered to produce the responsive documents.
C.
Request No. 13
Request Number 13 asks for all investigatory files generated as a
result of Anderson’s complaints about Deputy Gillette. The Defendants
object on relevance grounds. The objection is overruled. The Defendants
are ordered to produce the responsive documents. Again, Janssen alleges
a custom and practice within the Sheriff’s Department of abuse and
violence toward the public. The Sheriff’s Department’s response to
complaints about abusive behavior by Deputy Gillette may lead to evidence
relevant to this allegation. The Defendants also complain that Janssen has
presented no facts to support this request. Again, the Defendants have the
burden of proof to establish that the discovery should not be allowed, not
Janssen. The Defendants are ordered to produce the documents, which
Page 8 of 12
again are not to be used outside of this litigation and are subject to the
Protective Order entered previously herein.
D.
Request No. 14
Request Number 14 asks for the files pertaining to Deputy Gillette
that were redacted in the state case, Gekas v. Williamson, 393 Ill.App.3d
573, 912 N.E.2d 347 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2009). Deputy Gillette was
investigated for abusive conduct. Id., 912 N.E.2d at 350. Redacted
versions of the investigative files were produced pursuant to the Illinois
Freedom of Information act in the Gekas case. Janssen wants the
redacted portions of the file. The Defendants object on relevance grounds
and on the grounds that the redacted portions were properly withheld under
the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. The objection based on the Illinois
Freedom of Information Act is overruled. The Illinois Freedom of
Information Act is irrelevant to discovery in federal court. The confidential
information can be protected through the Protective Orders, or Defendants
may propose an additional protective order.
With respect to the relevance objection, the Defendants are ordered
to provide the redacted information to the Court for in camera review. The
Court will review the information and determine whether the material is
discoverable.
Page 9 of 12
E.
Request No. 16
Request Number 16 asks for records pertaining to payments of
settlements by Sangamon County or the Sheriff’s Department relating to
claims of excessive force. The Defendants object on relevance grounds,
on the grounds that some of the settlements may contain confidentiality
clauses, and on grounds that the request has no time frame. The Court
sustains the objections. The amount of settlements or the payment of
settlements is not relevant and not likely to lead to relevant evidence.
II.
Interrogatories
Janssen moves to compel answers to Interrogatories 3, 4, and 6.
Motion and Exhibit B, Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. The Court will
address each interrogatory in order.
A.
Interrogatory 3
Interrogatory 3 asks for any steps that the Sheriff’s Department took
as a result of investigation of Deputy Gillette, or other alleged police
brutality incidents, to train its officers on how to deal with the public during
encounters with the public. Defendants state that deputies are trained on
how to deal with public encounters, but the training is not related to the
investigation of Deputy Gillette or any other specific incident. Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (d/e 24) (Response), at 5. Defendants also
object on relevance grounds, but do not object to disclosing that deputies
Page 10 of 12
are trained on how to deal with the public. Id. The Defendants, therefore,
are directed to describe the training given to deputies on how to deal with
the public. The Defendants have otherwise answered the remaining part of
the interrogatory in their Response; deputy training on how to handle public
encounters was not the result of any specific incident, such as the
investigation of Deputy Gillette. The remainder of the objection is therefore
denied as moot.
B.
Interrogatory 4
Interrogatory 4 asks for the identity of all persons involved in the
decision to terminate Deputy Anderson and their involvement in the
decision. During the parties’ discussions to resolve this discovery dispute,
Janssen modified this interrogatory to ask for the identity of all person who
were aware of Anderson’s complaints against fellow officers prior to his
firing or resignation as the case may be. The Defendants object on
relevance grounds. The objection is overruled. The identity of people who
may be aware of Anderson’s complaint may be relevant to Janssen’s
allegations that the Sheriff’s Department had a custom, pattern or practice
of treating the public with violence and abuse. The response of
supervisory personnel to complaints of violence and abuse may be relevant
to show the attitude within the Sheriff’s Department to violence and abuse
of the public. The Defendants also complain that Janssen has not
Page 11 of 12
presented evidence of a custom or practice, but again, at this point the
Defendant have the burden to proof to support their objections. Janssen is
not required to prove her allegations at the discovery stage. The
Defendants are directed to answer interrogatory #4.
C.
Interrogatory 6
Interrogatory 6 asks whether the Sheriff’s Department or Sangamon
County has ever become aware of steroid use within the Sheriff’s
Department, and if so, the response to such allegations. The Defendants
object on relevance grounds. The objection is sustained. Any alleged
steroid use is not likely to lead to relevant evidence about violence or
abusive treatment of the public.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sherry Janssen’s Motion to Compel
Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Certain Documents (d/e 23) is
ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. The Defendants are ordered to
provide documents for in camera review to the Court, and to provide
answers and documents to Janssen, as set forth in this Opinion by
July 22, 2011.
ENTER:
June 27, 2011
s/ Byron G. Cudmore
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 12 of 12
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?