DAVIS et al v. CARMEL CLAY SCHOOLS
Filing
115
ORDER granting in part and denying in part the Prosecutor's 90 Motion for Reconsideration (see Order for details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/11/2012. (SWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RICKEY L. DAVIS,
SHERONDA DAVIS,
)
)
)
)
) NO. 1:11-cv-00771-SEB-MJD
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CARMEL CLAY SCHOOLS,
Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This cause is before the Court on interested non-party the
Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for the 24th Judicial
Circuit’s (hereinafter “the Prosecutor”) motion to reconsider
the Court’s Order of March 30, 2012 [Dkt. 77] denying in part
the Prosecutor’s Motion to Quash, and granting in part the
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
For the reasons detailed in this
entry, the Prosecutor’s motion to reconsider is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Ricky L. Davis and Sheronda Davis, next best
friends of minor M.D., served a subpoena under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 45 on the Prosecutor, seeking discovery of
materials related to the investigation and prosecution of the
defendants in the criminal matter that is related to the
underlying incident giving rise to this case.
1
The Prosecutor
filed a Motion to Quash and the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to
Compel related to the materials sought.
The Prosecutor sought
to assert several privileges to protect the materials from
disclosure, including the work product and statutory privileges.
After conducting an in camera review, the Court denied in part
the motion to quash and granted in part the motion to compel in
an order dated March 30, 2012.
The Prosecutor timely filed its
motion to reconsider that order on April 16, 2012 [Dkt. 90],
claiming that certain documents that were ordered to be
disclosed are protected by the work product privilege, and that
document 310 on the Prosecutor’s privilege log was protected
from disclosure under a state law governing the disclosure of
information related to an investigation of allegations of abuse
of a minor.
LEGAL STANDARD
Motions to reconsider serve a limited function, to be used
“where ‘the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has
made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the
Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but
of apprehension.’” Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales,
Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting Above the
Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101
(E.D.Va. 1983)). The parties may not introduce evidence
previously available but unused in the prior proceeding or
2
tender new legal theories. See In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324
(7th Cir.1996); Bally Export Corp. v. Balicar Ltd., 804 F.2d
398, 404 (7th Cir.1986). A court may grant a motion to
reconsider where a movant demonstrates a manifest error of law
or fact. In re Prince, 85 F.3d at 324. A motion to reconsider is
not an occasion to make new arguments. Granite State Ins. Co. v.
Degerlia, 925 F.2d 189, 192 n. 7 (7th Cir. 1991).
DISCUSSION
A.
Document 310
The Prosecutor objects to the disclosure of document 310 on
its Privilege Log, [Dkt. 67 at 28], on the basis that it
contains some information on investigations of allegations of
abuse regarding minor children other than M.D.
While the
Court’s prior order did not specifically reference document 310,
the Court ordered that “Plaintiffs are entitled to disclosure of
any reports in which M.D. is named, provided that the identity
of the reporters are protected” and the identity of the reporter
must be redacted prior to its production. [Dkt. 77 at 16.]
Therefore, the motion to reconsider the Court’s ruling with
regard to document 310 is GRANTED IN PART.
To the extent that
document 310 references any other minor besides M.D., the name
of the other minor or minors, as well as any other information
not pertaining to M.D., should be redacted prior to disclosure.
3
B.
Relevance of Remaining Documents
The Prosecutor asks the Court to reconsider its
determination that a non-party is not entitled to work product
protection, and seeks protection of stand-alone prosecutorial
notes, drafts of legal pleadings and case documents, case
research, documents with prosecutorial notes on them, and
communications between prosecutors.
While the Court declines to reconsider its ruling that the
Prosecutor is not entitled to work-product protection as it
relates to discovery sought by a non-party or a non-interested
party, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to
disclosure of some of the Prosecutor’s documents on relevance
grounds.
Under Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iv), the court must quash a subpoena
if it subjects a person to undue burden.
Relevancy is one of
the factors a court must consider when determining whether a
subpoena imposes undue burden on a non-party.
WM High Yield v.
O’Hanlon, 460 F. Supp. 2d 891, 895 (S.D. Ind. 2006).
Additionally, non-party status is a significant factor to be
considered when assessing undue burden for the purpose of a Rule
45 motion.
Id. at 895-96.
The Court finds that the requests for stand-alone
prosecutorial notes, drafts of legal pleadings and case
documents, case research, documents with prosecutorial notes on
4
them, and communications between prosecutors must be quashed on
the basis that they are not relevant, thus imposing an undue
burden on the Prosecutor as a non-party to this case. These
documents do not meet the test for relevancy, as they are not
likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
With regard to the prosecutorial notes – both stand alone
and other documents with prosecutorial notes on them – these
documents and notes relate to the Prosecutor’s investigation of
the case, not Defendant Carmel Clay School’s knowledge about the
alleged incident, which is what is at issue in this case.
Therefore, the Prosecutor’s motion to reconsider the Court’s
order on its motion to quash the subpoena for documents 1, 50,
52, 80, 103, 109, 131, 134, 161, 176, 181, 197 -201, 209, 212,
213, 219, 221, 225, 227, 236, 247, 266, 276, 297, 298, 307, 316,
323, 324, 333, 360, 365, and 367 is GRANTED.
Likewise, the
request for redaction of documents 21, 71, 84, 107, 135, 315,
318, 320, 330, 331, 332, 334, and 343 is GRANTED.
The
Prosecutor is to redact all handwritten Prosecutor notes prior
to disclosure of these documents.
Regarding drafts of legal pleadings and case documents,
these are also not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence and are therefore not relevant.
These documents were
never used in the proceedings and also would not relate to the
Defendant’s knowledge or handling of their internal
5
investigations.
The Prosecutor’s motion to reconsider the
Court’s order on its motion to quash the subpoena for documents
70, 71, 99, 101, 105, 117, 214, and 239 is GRANTED.
The documents relating to legal research performed by the
Prosecutor are also not relevant to the Plaintiffs’ case.
There
is nothing in the printouts of case law and statutory authority
that would lead to admissible evidence related to the
Plaintiffs’ case.
The Prosecutor’s motion to reconsider the
Court’s order on its motion to quash the subpoena for documents
16, 89, 124, 129, 215, 216, 226, 234, 235, 300, 350, 361, and
366 is GRANTED.
Finally, with regard to internal communications between
prosecutors, these documents also are not relevant to the issue
of the Defendant’s knowledge and investigation of the alleged
incident.
These communications primarily relate to the
Prosecutor’s handling and investigation of the related criminal
matter and would not lead to the discovery of relevant,
admissible evidence.
The Prosecutor’s motion to reconsider the
Court’s order on its motion to quash the subpoena for documents
61, 114, 149, 173, 202, 245, 299, and 388 is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Prosecutor’s Objections to
Order Denying in Part the Prosecutor’s Motion to Quash and
Granting In Part the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel are GRANTED IN
6
PART and DENIED IN PART.
Date:
10/11/2012
Mark J. Dinsmore
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email
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?