Marshall et al v. Merrillville Town of et al
Filing
55
OPINION AND ORDER: Court OVERRULES 53 Objections to Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, ADOPTS 52 the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and DENIES 15 Motion for Discovery Sanctions and Attorney's Fees Agai nst the Town of Merrillville, 21 Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions and Attorney's Fees Against the Town of Merrillville, 24 Third Motion for Discovery Sanctions and Attorney's Fees Against the Town of Merrillville, 27 Fourth Motion for Discovery Sanctions and Attorney's Fees Against the Town of Merrillville, 40 Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney Lisa Baron, and 41 Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney Elizabeth Knight. Defendants to serve the Plaintiffs as outlined in the order. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 7/13/2015. (tc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DAVID MARSHALL, III and LAMISA
MARSHALL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TOWN OF MERRILLVILLE, OFFICER
ALLISON ELLIS, individually and in her official
capacity, and OFFICER TIMOTHY FINNERTY,
individually and in his official capacity,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 2:14-cv-50-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 15],
filed on July 2, 2013, Second Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 21], filed on December 8, 2014,
Third Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 24], filed on December 9, 2014, Fourth Motion for
Sanctions [ECF No. 27], filed on December 18, 2014, Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney
Lisa Baron [ECF No. 40], filed on February 6, 2015, and Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney
Elizabeth Knight [ECF No. 41], filed on February 6, 2015. The Plaintiffs request the Court to
enter sanctions of default judgment and monetary sanctions against the Defendants for failure to
comply with discovery requests.
On February 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order [ECF No. 46] referring this case to
Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry to review the motions and briefing as to the sanction requests
and to issue a report and recommendation on the same, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Rule 72-1. On March 18, 2015, Judge Cherry filed his Findings, Report, and Recommendation
[ECF No. 52] in which he recommended that the Court deny the Plaintiffs’ Motions for
Sanctions but also issue an order requiring the Defendants to provide complete discovery
responses where he found their current responses to be deficient. The Plaintiffs filed Objections
to the Findings and Report of United State Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 53] on March 31, 2015.
The Plaintiffs’ Motions for Sanctions and objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Report,
and Recommendation are ripe for ruling.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In accordance with the Federal Magistrate’s Act, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and Local Rule 72-1, a judge may designate a magistrate
judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, including dispositive
motions, and the magistrate judge must enter a recommended disposition, including any
proposed findings of fact. The parties then have fourteen days after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “The district judge must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected
to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Harlyn Sales Corp. Profit Sharing
Plan v. Kemper Fin. Servs., 9 F.3d 1263, 1266 (7th Cir. 1993). The district judge must look at all
the evidence contained in the record and may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Harlyn, 9 F.3d at 1266.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Officer Ellis and Officer Finnerty kicked them out of
their daughter’s high school graduation ceremony and thereby are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
2
for violating their constitutional right to peaceably assemble as well as for the state-law tort of
intentional infliction of emotional distress. They also allege that this incident is part of a larger
pattern and that the Town of Merrillville is liable for improper hiring and retention.
Although the motions before the Court deal with various discovery disputes, they share
the central contention that the Town and its attorneys have failed to provide complete discovery
and have engaged in an elaborate hide-the-ball game in an effort to undermine the Plaintiffs’
case. The Plaintiffs ask for monetary sanctions against the Town and its attorneys, Lisa Baron
and Elizabeth Knight, as well as an entry of default judgment against all Defendants.
The Court has reviewed the entire record of this case, including the various motions with
accompanying briefing, the Magistrate Judge’s 13-page Report and Recommendation, and the
Plaintiffs’ objections to that Report and Recommendation. Having made a de novo review of the
arguments presented by the parties, the Court agrees with and adopts as its own the findings and
analysis of the Magistrate Judge, which are now incorporated by reference as part of this Order.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ Objections to
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 53], ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 52], and DENIES the Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Discovery Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees Against the Town of Merrillville [ECF No. 15],
Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees Against the Town of Merrillville
[ECF No. 21], Third Motion for Discovery Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees Against the Town of
Merrillville [ECF No. 24], Fourth Motion for Discovery Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees Against
the Town of Merrillville [ECF No. 27], Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney Lisa Baron [ECF
3
No. 40], and Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney Elizabeth Knight [ECF No. 41]. The Court
ORDERS the Defendants to serve the Plaintiffs with all nonprivileged documents in its control,
including those in the custody of its former attorney, sought by the Plaintiffs in their Third
Request for Production and to provide a complete response to the Plaintiffs’ July 1, 2014,
interrogatory, which asked for a list and summary of all civil rights suits involving the Town
since 2009, all within 30 days from the date of this Order.
SO ORDERED on July 13, 2015.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
.
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
4
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?