COLEMAN v. CURRY et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting 36 and 37 Motion to Quash. However the requests for a protective order are denied. If Coleman formulates a request for documents that is more restricted, he may serve it and the Board should respond appropriately as governed by the FRCP. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/16/2012 Ocopy mailed to Wayde Coleman) (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
WAYDE COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TERRY CURRY, REBECCA MEYER,
PAUL R CIESIELSKI,
INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN
POLICE, DENNY RANDALL
JASON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-1256-TWP-DKL

Entry Discussing Motions to Quash
The City of Indianapolis (“the City”) has filed two motions to quash plaintiff
Wayde Coleman’s Subpoena to Produce Documents.1 That subpoena, directed to the
Citizen Police Complaint Board and Citizen Complaint Office (“the Board”) requests
the following: “Copies of all citizens complaints, internal investigation reports, final
resolution letter of each complaint and any other relevant document not mentioned
that have been filed in your office in the past 10 years.” The subpoena also
requested that Coleman be allowed to inspect the Citizen Complaint Board Office.
The City of Indianapolis objects to the subpoena arguing that it is overly
broad and not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. “The
party opposing discovery has the burden of showing the discovery is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, or not relevant.” Graham v. Casey's Gen. Stores, 206 F.R.D.

The City filed its motion to quash as a non-party. The court has since granted the plaintiff’s motion
to amend his complaint, which added the City as a defendant.
1

251, 254 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (Wauchop v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 539, 543
(N.D.Ind.1991)). “To meet this burden, the objecting party must “‘specifically detail
the reasons why each [request] is irrelevant . . . .’” Id. (quoting Schaap v. Executive
Indus., Inc., 130 F.R.D. 384, 387 (N.D.Ill.1990)).
The City argues that the subpoena creates an undue burden because it
contemplates production of 1,500 to two thousand 2,000 complaints. The Board
receives 150 to 200 complaints each year. The City points out, however, that it
maintains complaint records for only three years. Complaints older than three years
are destroyed. Because complaints older than three years are destroyed, the Board
could conceivably produce 600 complaints. The City states that production of the
range and amount of documents requested presents considerable burden and
expense to the Board, which is overseen by a small staff of three individuals. The
City goes on to argue that the subpoena lacks any meaningful restraints as to time
or other criteria, such as type of complaint or name of officer. The City also argues
that the requested prior complaints are irrelevant. Finally, the City argues that the
complaints are privileged and confidential but has not pointed to a law, regulation,
or other source making the complaints confidential. With respect to the request to
perform an inspection of the Board office, the City argues that the office does not
have any relevance to the lawsuit and inspection of the office presents a hardship to
the Board.
The Board also seeks a protective order as to any documents or materials not
directly related to Coleman’s own prior complaint to the Board or the officers which

are the subject of his prior complaint, as any complaints beyond such parameters
are wholly irrelevant to this matter. The Board further seeks a protective order
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) as to any documents or materials pertaining to the
investigation of any citizen complaints beyond the complaint itself and any
document indicating the disposition of such complaint. Investigation records and
documents are privileged, confidential, and irrelevant to this litigation.
Coleman responds that the documents sought in the subpoena are relevant or
will lead to relevant evidence on his claims against policymakers pursuant to
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Coleman
also states that he has personal knowledge of several complaints filed against the
defendants.
The court agrees that the scope of Coleman’s subpoena is very broad and it is
overly burdensome for the Board to formulate a response to the request. In addition,
the court can see no reason necessitating inspection by Coleman of the Board’s
offices. For these reasons, the motions to quash [Dkt. 36] and [Dkt. 37] are
granted. However, the requests for a protective order are denied. If Coleman
formulates a request for documents that is more restricted, he may serve it and the
Board should respond appropriately as governed by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11/16/2012
Date: _________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Wayde Coleman
11303 Lynchburg Way
Indianapolis, IN 46229
All electronically registered counsel