Norwood v. Haas
Filing
62
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Plaintiff Larry W. Norwood's Motion to Compel 54 is ALLOWED only in part. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 21 December, 2011 11:33:22 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
LARRY W. NORWOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPECIAL AGENT GLEN HAAS, in
his individual and official capacities,
SPECIAL AGENT TIM HANSEN, in
his individual capacity, FRANCISCO
JAVIER LUEVANO-CISNEROS, and
the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 10-CV-3001
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Larry W. Norwood’s
Motion to Compel (d/e 54) (Motion). Norwood moves to compel Defendant
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent Glen Haas to
produce DEA manual governing procedures for retention and processing of
an arrestee’s personal property. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is ALLOWED subject to entry of a protective order limiting access to
the material to counsel only.
BACKGROUND
Norwood alleges that Defendant Haas violated Norwood’s
constitutional rights by taking Norwood’s personal belongings when
Page 1 of 7
Norwood was arrested on April 25, 2006. Amended Complaint (d/e 25),
¶¶ 21-24. Norwood was subsequently convicted of possession of
marijuana with intent to distribute and is currently incarcerated in federal
prison.
At Haas’ deposition, Norwood’s counsel asked Haas whether the
DEA had protocols and directives relating to retention and processing of an
arrestee’s personal property. Haas testified that DEA had a written policy
in a DEA manual. Motion, Exhibit A, Excerpt of Deposition of Glenn Haas,
at 5-6. Norwood served a request to produce on Haas to produce all
procedure manuals and directives referenced by Haas in his deposition.
Haas objected on the grounds of privilege and relevance. Motion,
Exhibit C, Special Agent Haas’ Response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Request to Produce, ¶ 1 Response. The parties have attempted to resolve
this dispute, but have not been able to do so. Norwood has, thus, filed this
Motion.
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
Page 2 of 7
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 130, 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 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). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
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.” Id. The party
opposing discovery has the burden of proving that the requested discovery
Page 3 of 7
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., 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).
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.
ANALYSIS
Defendants Haas and the United States (Defendants) object on the
grounds of relevance and privilege. The Court finds that the DEA written
procedures regarding possession and processing of a arrestee’s personal
property is relevant. Norwood alleges a Bivens claim that Haas violated his
constitutional rights by taking Norwood’s personal property after his arrest.
The intent requirement in a Bivens action is intentional or reckless conduct.
See e.g., Gossmeyer v. McDonald, 128 F.2d 481, 494 (7th Cir. 1997).
Page 4 of 7
Evidence that Haas violated DEA procedures may be relevant to the issue
of whether Haas acted recklessly.
The document request, however, asks for the entire DEA manual that
may contain these procedures. There is no showing that the entire manual
is relevant. The Court therefore sustains the objection to the entire
manual, but overrules Haas’ relevance objection as to those portions of any
DEA manual or directives that concern the possession of, and processing
personal property taken from an arrestee at the time of arrest.
Defendants argue that DEA procedures have no relevance because
the Illinois State Police took possession of Norwood’s personal property,
not Haas. Defendants, however, concede that Norwood testified at his
deposition that he turned over his personal property to Haas. Defendant
Special Agent Glenn Haas’ and the United States’ Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel (d/e 61), at 2. Norwood’s testimony is disputed by Haas
and Defendant Timothy Hansen. Id. Norwood’s testimony, however, still
provides an evidentiary basis to discover the procedures that Haas should
have followed if Norwood’s testimony is true.
Defendants also assert that the DEA manual is privileged. The
Defendants argue that the DEA manual contains sensitive internal
information regarding law enforcement procedures and should not be
disclosed to Norwood, a convicted drug dealer who is currently
Page 5 of 7
incarcerated in federal prison. Defendants, however, cite no authority for
the proposition that the DEA manual fits within a recognized evidentiary
privilege, and the Court is not aware of any applicable privilege. The Court
agrees, though, that internal law enforcement manuals may contain
sensitive information that should not be disclosed to federal prisoners such
as Norwood.
The Court therefore overrules the claim of privilege, but subjects the
limited ordered disclosure to the following protective order. The Court
limits the production of the relevant material and the review of same to
Norwood’s counsel only and not to Norwood nor to any other person.
Counsel for Norwood further may not use or file this material in this
proceeding without leave of court. Counsel also must return the material
and all copies to counsel for the United States and Haas at the conclusion
of this case, and may not use the information contained in the material in
any other case or for any other purpose.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Larry W. Norwood’s Motion to Compel
(d/e 54) is ALLOWED only in part. The Court directs Defendants Haas and
the United States to produce to Plaintiff’s counsel any of those portions of
any DEA manual or directives that concern possession of, and processing
personal property taken from an arrestee at the time of arrest. Plaintiff’s
counsel may not disclose the produced documents or the information
Page 6 of 7
contained therein to Plaintiff Norwood or any other person and may not use
or file the material in this proceeding for any purpose without leave of court.
Counsel must also return the material and all copies to counsel for the
United States and Haas at the conclusion of this case, and may not use the
information contained in the produced material in any other case or for any
other purpose.
ENTER: December 21, 2011
s/ Byron G. Cudmore
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 7 of 7
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?