GRIFFITH v. A. DOWNEY et al
Filing
124
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 112 Motion to Reconsider Parts of Order at Docket No. 104 . SEE ORDER. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/28/2019. (SWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JAMES F. GRIFFITH,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
F. BRANNICK,
D. HASKINS,
YARBAR,
DEVINE,
E. DRADA,
N. LYDAY,
PHILLIPS,
Defendants.
No. 1:17-cv-00194-TWP-MJD
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S VERFIED MOTION TO
RECONSIDER PARTS OF ORDER AT DOCKET NO. 104
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Verified Motion to Reconsider Parts of
“Order on Plaintiff’s Verified Fourth and Fifth Motions to Compel Discovery.” [Dkt. 112.] On
January 17, 2019, the Court issued its Order [Dkt. 104] on two motions: 1) Plaintiff’s Verified
Fourth Motion to Compel Discovery [Dkt. 87] and 2) Plaintiff’s Verified Fifth Motion to Compel
Discovery [Dkt. 93], granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motions. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court now DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider.
I. Background
In this action, Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at New Castle Correctional Facility,
brings excessive use of force claims against correctional officer Defendants that he asserts
occurred while he was housed at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility [Dkt. 5 at 1.] Plaintiff
1
alleges that on June 2, 2016 Defendants dragged him to F cell house and carried him down the
stairs out of the view of cameras. [Dkt. 5 at 2.] While Plaintiff was handcuffed, he contends
Defendants body slammed, jumped on, and began beating him. [Dkt. 5 at 2.] In relevant part of
Plaintiff’s Verified Fourth and Fifth Motions to Compel, the Court granted the following
discovery requests in its January 17, 2019 Order:
1). Plaintiff’s Verified Fourth Motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory No. 11 to the limited extent that the Court directs Defendants to
identify what inmate grievances, if any, were filed against them complaining of the
use of physical force and detailing the alleged nature of that force between June 2,
2014 and June 2, 2017. Confidential or sensitive security information may be
redacted. Contemporaneous with the production of these responses to Plaintiff,
Defendants are ordered to provide copies of both the redacted and the unredacted
grievance records in an ex-parte filing for in camera review.
2). The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 2 to
the limited extent that the Court directs Defendants to produce any use of force
reports they participated in creating in response to an inmate grievance or where
medical care was provided to an inmate as a result of the interaction between June
2, 2014 and June 2, 2017. Confidential or sensitive security information may be
redacted. Contemporaneous with the production of these redacted documents to
Plaintiff, Defendants are ordered to provide copies of both the redacted and
unredacted use of force reports in an ex-parte filing for in camera review.
[See Dkt. 104.]
Plaintiff timely filed his Verified Motion to Reconsider on February 7, 2019, urging the
Court to reconsider the limitations placed upon 1). Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 11 involving
inmate grievances filed for use of physical force between June 2, 2014 and June 2, 2017 and 2).
Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 2 involving use of force reports Defendants developed in
response to the aforementioned inmate grievances or inmates provided medical care as a result of
physical force incidents within the same three-year period. [Dkt. 112 at 1.]
2
II. 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 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).
This is a difficult standard to meet: “Motions to reconsider are granted for ‘compelling
reasons,’ such as a change in the law which reveals that an earlier ruling was erroneous, not for
addressing arguments that a party should have raised earlier.” Solis v. Current Dev. Corp., 557
F.3d 772, 780 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). It is accordingly “inappropriate to argue matters
that could have been raised in prior motions” or to “rehash previously rejected arguments[.]”
United States v. Zabka, No. 1:10-CV-1078, 2013 WL 9564253, at *2 (C.D.Ill. Aug. 19, 2013);
accord, e.g., Caisse Nationale De Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1267, 1270 (7th
Cir. 1996) (“Again we emphasize, apart from manifest errors of law, reconsideration is not for
rehashing previously rejected arguments.”); id. (“[A] motion to reconsider is not the appropriate
vehicle to introduce new legal theories[.]”). This Court ultimately has “broad discretion” in
deciding whether to grant a motion for reconsideration, Solis, 557 F.3d at 780, and for the
3
reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge exercises that discretion to DENY Plaintiff’s motion.
III. Discussion
A. Inmate Grievances & Use of Force: Three Year Limitation
Plaintiff’s motion moves the Court to reconsider its three-year time period limitation for
Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production No. 2,
disclosing inmate grievances concerning physical force and use of force reports stemming from
such grievances or inmate medical care responding to physical force incidents between June 2,
2014 and June 2, 2017. [Dkt. 112 at 2.] Plaintiff asserted “the three year period adopted by the
Court . . . has a very limited relevance to most Defendants, and will not help Plaintiff at all for
Defendant Brannick.” [Dkt. 112 at 2.] In this motion, Plaintiff claimed his alleged incident of
excessive force, the very incident in the matter at hand, occurred on June 2, 2014; thus, any
incidents of force involving Defendants would be “subsequent” to Plaintiff’s incident. [Dkt. 112
at 2.] In the case of Defendant Brannick, Plaintiff asserted this officer no longer worked for
Wabash Correctional Facility after 2014 and according to Plaintiff, Defendant Brannick was a
“main” participant in his excessive force claim. [Dkt. 112 and 2.] Ultimately, Plaintiff seeks the
Court to reconsider the current three-year timespan by amending it to the interval between June
2, 2011 and June 2, 2014. [Dkt. 112 at 2.]
Plaintiff’s own filed Complaint alleged the incident occurred on June 2, 2016. [Dkt. 1 at
6-7.] Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents additionally mentioned June 2, 2016
through request of “[a]ll emails and written communications the Office of Investigation and
DHU Unit Team staff sent to defendants . . . concerning the Plaintiff[,]”seeking discovery of the
video footage of the cell house reassignment, and Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions surrounding
the cell escort circumstances [Dkt. 81-1 at 1; Dkt. 87 at 1; Dkt. 93-1 at 1.] Plaintiff submitted
4
requests for the preservation of the cell escort video footage and clearly documented the date of
the incident as June 2, 2016. [Dkt. 99 at 2.]
The Court weighed Plaintiff’s Propounded Interrogatory No. 11 request, which originally
sought all incidents of physical force Defendants used; the Court limited the scope of the
discovery request to three years. [Dkt. 104 at 11-12.]
Likewise, the Court weighed Plaintiff’s
Request for Production No. 2, which originally sought all use of force reports for the last eight
years; the Court limited the scope of the discovery to those reports made in response to an inmate
grievance or inmate provided medical care as a result of an interaction involving force over the
three year period. [Dkt. 104 at 15-16.] The Court found the timeline between June 2, 2014 and
June 2, 2017 to provide a sufficient opportunity for the Plaintiff to sample pre and post
grievances raised concerning physical force and their related use of force reports as compared to
the date of Plaintiff’s alleged incident. The Court finds no justification to shift its three-year
time period when Plaintiff’s pleadings, discovery requests, discovery motions, spoliation motion,
and exhibits identify June 2, 2016 as the date of his excessive force claim.
Therefore, the Motion to Reconsider the Court’s ruling with regard to the limited
timeframe set for discoverable information concerning Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 11 and
Request for Production No. 2 is DENIED.
B. Other Inmate Grievances & Use of Force Reports Limitations
Plaintiff’s motion argued that discovery of information about “Defendants’ other/prior
uses of force should not depend on whether the other prisoners filed a grievance or sought
medical attention.” [Dkt. 112 at 2.] Plaintiff contended that some prisoners may not file
grievances out of fear of retaliation. [Dkt. 112 at 2.] Plaintiff acknowledged that the Court
narrowed Plaintiff’s discovery requests due to the fact that “use of force” may concern “any
5
‘physical handling[.]’” [Dkt. 112 at 2.] However, Plaintiff believed there were other ways to
limit discovery requests that would be conducive to allowing the Plaintiff the relevant
information he needs for his excessive force claim such as limiting Interrogatory No. 11 and
Request for Production to:
all offender escourts [sic] where the offender needed to be handcuffed and
escourted [sic], after a radio/telephone/verbal call for additional correctional staff
occurred; all cell extractions; all uses of force after or in response to offender-onoffender and/or offender-on-prison official violence, or threat of violence, or threat
of violence; and, all uses of force after or in response to a prisoner resisting a prison
officials physical handling.
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 11 sought information surrounding Defendants’ incidents of use of
physical force “on other offenders other than Plaintiff [and] . . . the circumstances of those
incidents[.]” [Dkt. 104 at 9.] Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 2 sought “The Use of Force
Reports the defendants completed over the last eight (8) years for all uses of force the defendants
were part of.” The Court finds the terms of its limited scope of these discovery requests do serve
the Plaintiff’s purposes in examining other/prior uses of force. Plaintiff had ample time during
the discovery period to draft requests in the manner he suggested within his Motion to
Reconsider. Plaintiff has not asserted any compelling reasons to persuade the Court to alter its
previous limitations of his discovery requests.
“As the Seventh Circuit has emphasized time and again, the district court has wide
discretion with respect to discovery matters, including the settling of discovery disputes,
determining the scope of discovery, and otherwise controlling the manner of discovery.” United
States ex rel. Conroy, Select Medical Corp., 307 F.Supp.3d 896, 901 (S.D. Ind. 2018); BrownBey v. U.S., 720 F.2d 467, 471 (7th Cir. 1983) (“A trial court’s limitation on the manner and
course of discovery will be reversed by this Court only upon a showing that the limitation ‘is
improvident and prejudices a party’s substantial rights.’”). Therefore, the Motion to Reconsider
6
the Court’s ruling with regard to compelling Defendants to provide other inmate grievances due
to use of force or inmates provided medical treatment as a result of use of force, on Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production No., 2 is DENIED.
C.
Redaction of Confidential Information
Pursuant to the Court’s January 17, 2019 Order, Defendants must produce clear and
unequivocal responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production No. 2.
[Dkt. 104 at 12, 15-16.] For each of these requests the Court’s Order instructed Defendants that
they may redact “[c]onfidential or sensitive security information . . . . [and] are ordered to
provide copies of both the redacted and the unredacted grievance records [and] use of force
reports in an ex-parte filing for in camera review.” [Dkt. 104 at 12, 16.] Plaintiff’s motion
argued Defendants have “consistently with[held] relevant discoverable material” and may “omit
other offenders’ names, Indiana Dept. of Correction numbers and locations.” [Dkt. 112 at 3.]
Plaintiff argued this is the type of information that is “necessary” to develop a witness list for
trial. [Dkt. 112 at 3.] Defendants’ Reply maintained that “[s]ensitive information should not
have to be released to a prisoner.” [Dkt. 120 at 2.]
“An in camera inspection may properly be used to decide whether a party’s claim of
litigative needs outweighs the government’s interest in confidentiality.” United States v. Board
of Educ. of City of Chi., 610 F. Supp. 695, 699 (N.D. Ill. 1985). The purpose of the in camera
review is to allow the Court to examine the identified inmate grievances surrounding physical
force and the related use of force reports, both their “redacted” and “unredacted” versions, to
determine what “unredacted” access should be granted. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reconsider concerning Plaintiff’s objection to Defendants’ redaction of confidential information
pertaining to Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production No. 2 is DENIED.
7
D. Language Limitation of Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 11
Plaintiff’s motion raised concern over the Court’s limitation to Interrogatory No. 11; in
particular, Plaintiff stated this narrowed scope “would allow Defendants to merely identify
grievance numbers, but withhold any information about the incidents of force or the details about
the grievances.” [Dkt. 112 at 3.] The Court reiterates from its January 17, 2019 Order, “the
Court directs Defendants to identify what inmate grievances, if any were filed against them
complaining of the use of physical force and detailing the alleged nature of that force between
June 2, 2014 and June 2, 2017.” [Dkt. 104 at 12] (emphasis added). Additionally, the Court
ordered Defendants to contemporaneously with production of these answers to Plaintiff “provide
copies of both the redacted and the unredacted grievance records in an ex-parte filing for in
camera review.” [Dkt. 104 at 12.] As previously discussed, the Court’s in camera review is to
determine what “unredacted” access should be granted.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s concern about Defendants merely being able to list grievance
numbers is unwarranted given the Court’s specific language requiring both identification and
details of said inmate grievances. Further, Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 11, while a separate
discovery tool, in effect will be supplemented by Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 2,
requiring disclosure of use of force reports developed in response to an inmate grievance or
medical care provided to an inmate as a result of use of force to assist Plaintiff in attaining
discoverable information for his claim. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider concerning
Plaintiff’s objection to the Court’s limitation of Interrogatory No. 11 is DENIED.
8
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Verified Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 28 FEB 2019
Distribution:
JAMES F. GRIFFITH
117892
NEW CASTLE - CF
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
David A. Arthur
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
David.Arthur@atg.in.gov
Joshua Robert Lowry
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
joshua.lowry@atg.in.gov
9
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?