Moore et al v. City Of Chicago et al
Filing
64
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Arlander Keys on 10/2/2013. Mailed notice(ac, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
L.M., A MINOR, BY HIS MOTHER
AND NEXT FRIEND, LINDSAY
TAYLOR, GWENDOLYN MOORE AND
JACETA SMITH
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal
corporation, et al.,
,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 13 C 0483
Judge James Holderman
Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On August 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
Answers to Discovery. (Dkt. #49.)
For the following reasons, the
Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel in part with regard to
Interrogatory No. 1, but denies it regarding all else.
BACKGROUND
On December 15, 2012, Jamaal Moore was allegedly shot in the back
and killed by Chicago Police.
damages.
Plaintiff’s action seeks to recover
On July 12, 2013, Plaintiffs propounded a series of
interrogatories and requests for production for information to aid
Plaintiffs in discovery.
Defendant responded, however, Plaintiffs
found several deficiencies in Defendant’s responses.
After consulting
with Defendant about the deficiencies, on August 28, 2013, Plaintiffs
filed this motion to compel answers to discovery.
Since that time,
Defendant has made several amendments to its responses to Plaintiffs’
written discovery requests.
A status hearing was held on September
11, 2013, and as of that date, both parties agreed that only two
matters were still in dispute: (1) the disclosure of the home
addresses and last four digits of the Social Security Numbers of the
individual Defendant police officers; and (2) the production of
finance sheets reflecting monies paid to sworn and civilian personnel
who were on the scene of the arrest of Jamaal Moore, Sr..
Standard of Review
The district court exercises significant discretion in
ruling on a motion to compel.
The district court may grant or
deny the motion in whole or in part, and similar to ruling on a
request for a protective order under Rule 26(c), the district
court may fashion a ruling appropriate for the circumstances of
the case.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(B), (c).
Thus, a district
court is not limited to either compelling or not compelling a
discovery request; in making its ruling, a district court should
independently determine the proper course of discovery based upon
the arguments of the parties.
See, Gile v. United Airlines,
Inc., 95 F.3d 492, 496 (7th Cir. 1996).
Courts have discretion
to limit the extent of discovery after considering “[if] the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit...the importance of the issues at stake in the action,
2
and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c)(iii).
Where the party from whom the documents are requested
objects to the request, the party seeking the request may move
for an order to compel production.
Inc., 95 F.3d 496.
Gile v. United Airlines,
The Seventh Circuit, however, has often
warned that “discovery is not to be used as a fishing
expedition.” E.E.O.C. v. Harvey L. Walner & Associates, 91 F.3d
963, 971–972 (7th Cir. 1996). Accord Brenneman v. Knight, 297
Fed.Appx. 534, 538, 2008 WL 4748516, 2 (7th Cir. 2008) (“But
requiring the staff to conduct a fishing expedition, particularly
of the magnitude Brenneman requested, would have imposed too
great a burden.”)
Discussion
I.
Interrogatory No. 1
Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 1 is directed to the defendant
officers, and requests the full names, titles, addresses, and last
four digits of the social security numbers of the responding officers.
Defendant refuses to identify the officers’ respective addresses and
last four digits of their social security numbers, asserting that such
information is not reasonably related to discoverable information,
infringes upon privacy interests, and could put the officers at risk.
Plaintiffs argue that the information is necessary to conduct
background investigations, check credibility, and discover if there
3
are any potential biases for cross-examination.
Additionally,
Plaintiffs ensure the safeguarding of the sensitive information.
Rule 26 permits discovery into “any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ.
Pro. 26(b)(1). “Relevancy has been construed broadly to encompass
any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other
matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the
case.”
Wi-Lan, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 2011 WL 148058, *2
(N.D. Ill. 2011) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437
U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d 253 (1978)).
However,
“police officers play a significant role in
law enforcement that may subject them [to] danger and they have a
justifiable fear that disclosing their home addresses could
jeopardize their safety.”
Collens v. City of New York, 222
F.R.D. 249, 253 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2004).
The Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ access to the information
sought is reasonable, and that just as a party is allowed to
investigate into the identity and history of any other witness or
party to discover their credibility, character for truthfulness, bias,
motive and any other characteristics that bears upon their honesty;
Plaintiffs should be able to investigate into the same matters when
the opposing party or witness is a police officer.
However, the Court
finds that it must balance the Plaintiffs’ legitimate need for this
information with the safety concerns of the officers, and that
4
additional safeguards should be implemented to protect the personal
information of the officers, given the nature of Plaintiffs’ claim.
See Sasu v. Yoshimura, 147 FRD. 173, 176 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (Access to
police officer’s personnel file contingent upon redaction of
information about the officer and his family).
Defendants have offered that Plaintiffs “identify the
investigator or vendor they wish to perform the searches or
investigations of their choice at Defendants’ cost with the
results being returnable to Defendants, who will then redact
the social security numbers, home addresses and other identifying
personal information of the Defendant Police Officers, such as
credit card or other account numbers.” “Once those limited
redactions are made, the results would be turned
over to Plaintiffs.”
The Court finds this arrangement to be the
best solution, garnering Plaintiffs the in-depth retrieval of
background information requested, while protecting the personal
identification of the defendant officers.
The Court additionally
orders that the Court be provided, in camera, its own un-redacted
copy of the searches/investigations, in order to ensure that the
redactions made are limited to those outlined above.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel
Interrogatory No. 1 in part, but orders Defendant to comply with
the instructions set forth above.
5
II. Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12
Plaintiffs’ RFP Nos. 11 and 12 to the City seek any and all
finance sheets reflecting monies paid to sworn and civilian
personnel, including, but not limited to, police officers and
detectives who were on the scene of the shooting and arrest of
Jamaal Moore, Sr. on December 15, 2012.
Defendant has objected
to these requests on the basis that they are overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and that the information sought is not relevant and
is not likely to lead to relevant information. Additionally,
Defendant objects to the disclosure of this information on the
basis that it deals with financial information of individuals who
are not parties to this lawsuit.
Plaintiffs claim that the
information is particularly important to help identify all
employees of the City of Chicago who were at the scene of the
shooting and the arrest.
The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs,
and denies production.
The information requested by Plaintiffs will only identify
the payments made to employees of the City of Chicago on that
date, not who was specifically at the scene during those time
periods.
To the extent Plaintiffs want to know who was on duty
on the date of the alleged occurrences within those districts of
the Chicago Police Department, Defendant has already turned over
the Attendance & Assignment sheets for the 9th District and have
agreed to turn over the Attendance & Assignment sheets for the
6
7th District to Plaintiffs upon receipt of same, which contains
such information.
Defendant has also produced four Area Files,
Independent Police Review Authority’s file, and records of the
Office of Emergency and Management Communication, which reflect
the identities of personnel present at the scene.
Moreover, to
the extent Plaintiffs are seeking the identities of City of
Chicago employees not assigned to the Chicago Police Department
who were present at the time of the alleged occurrences,
Defendant has turned over records reflecting the identities of
such individuals, including personnel of the Chicago Fire
Department and the Independent Police Review Authority.
The Court finds that Defendant has adequately complied by
turning over records identifying many of the individuals who were
present at the time of the alleged occurrences, as well as those
individuals who were present some time thereafter, and that
Plaintiffs have presented no compelling reason for the production
of “finance sheets reflecting monies paid to sworn and civilian
personnel.”
Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel production of RFP Nos. 11 and 12.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel [Dkt. #49] is denied, in part.
Requests for Production
Numbers 11 and 12 are denied, however, with regard to
7
Interrogatory Number 1, Defendant is ordered to redact the
limited personal information returned from the search that is
performed by an investigator or vendor of Plaintiffs’ choosing,
before turning over all other information garnered to Plaintiffs,
as well as submitting an un-redacted copy of all information
retrieved for in camera review by the court.
Date: October 2, 2013
E N T E R E D:
_________________________________
MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARLANDER KEYS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
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?