BECKER v. CITY OF EVANSVILLE et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting 38 Motion to Compel. The Magistrate orders the Defendants to satisfy Becker's requests by May 29, 2014. Because the deadline to complete discovery was March 1, and because this is the only discovery dispute the parties have raised, the Magistrate orders all other discovery closed at this time. The Magistrate also orders Becker to respond to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 26 ) by June 19, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 4/29/2014. (NRN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
JAMIE BECKER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF EVANSVILLE,
)
UNKNOWN EVANSVILLE POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT OFFICERS, and
)
ZACHARY ELFREICH, individually and )
as an Officer of the Evansville Police
)
Department,
)
)
Defendants.
)

3:12-cv-182-WGH-TWP

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION
This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff Jamie Becker’s
Motion to Compel Production (Filing No. 38), the parties’ Consents to
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction (Filing No. 8; Filing No. 9), and Judge Pratt’s
Order of Reference (Filing No. 11). Becker filed his motion and brief on
February 20, 2014 (Filing No. 38; Filing No. 39), and the Defendants responded
on March 26, 2014 (Filing No. 48). Becker declined to file a reply brief. The
Magistrate Judge, having considered the motion, the parties’ filings, and
relevant law, and being duly advised, hereby GRANTS the motion.
I.

Background
In this lawsuit against the City of Evansville and Evansville Police

Department Officer Mark Elfreich, Plaintiff Jamie Becker claims that the

Defendants caused him permanent injuries and violated his constitutional
rights when they allowed a police dog to attack him when they arrested him on
March 22, 2011. (See Filing No. 1-1.) The Defendants moved for summary
judgment on October 30, 2013, asserting the defense of qualified immunity as
to claims against Officer Elfreich. (See Filing No. 27 at ECF pp. 20–22.) Two
weeks later, Becker moved the Court to grant him leave to respond until after
the close of discovery. (Filing No. 30.) Hearing no objection, the Court reset
the close of discovery for March 1, 2014, and ordered Becker to respond by
March 22. (Filing No. 35.)
On March 11, 2014, the Defendants also moved for judgment on the
pleadings. (Filing No. 44.) The Court partially granted that motion on April 22,
leaving the following claims unresolved:
Count I (battery) against the City and Officer Elfreich in his individual
capacity;
Counts II (negligence) and III (negligent supervision) against the City; and
Count IV (violation of Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983)
against Officer Elfreich in his individual capacity.
(Filing No. 56 at ECF p. 15.)
Becker’s Motion to Compel asks the Court to order the Defendants to
produce a variety of documents and records relating to the EPD’s training
programs and policies, complaints citizens have raised against the EPD and its
officers, and the conduct and discipline of Officer Elfreich and the canine used
in Becker’s arrest. (See Filing No. 38; Filing No. 39.)

2

II.

Legal Standard
A party to litigation is entitled to discover from his adversary “any

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A party who resists a discovery request bears the burden of
demonstrating that the materials requested should not be discoverable. See,
e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A), 26(c)(1).
III.

Discussion
The Defendants ask the Court to stay Becker’s requests on grounds that

complying with them would be unduly burdensome in light of their motions for
judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment. (See Filing No. 48 at ECF
pp. 1–2.) The Defendants do not object to any of Becker’s requests as seeking
privileged or otherwise undiscoverable evidence. Because the requests strike
the Magistrate Judge as seeking relevant evidence, and because the
Defendants have not asserted privilege or irrelevance, the Magistrate declines
to find any request inadequate. Instead, the Magistrate limits his analysis to
whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of the other motions.
A. Becker’s requests remain relevant after the Court’s resolution of
the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
The Defendants first ask the Court to stay Becker’s requests pending
resolution of their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (See Filing No. 48 at
ECF pp. 2–3.) The Court has ruled on that motion. Although the Court has
ordered dismissal of some of Becker’s claims, the Magistrate Judge finds that
each of Becker’s requests is relevant to at least one claim remaining in the
Complaint. Therefore, the Magistrate declines to further stay Becker’s requests
3

or relieve the Defendants from responding to any of them on the basis of the
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
B. Becker’s requests are relevant regardless how the qualified
immunity issue is resolved.
The Defendants next ask the Court to stay Becker’s requests pending
resolution of their Motion for Summary Judgment because it invokes the
defense of qualified immunity as to claims against Officer Elfreich. (See Filing
No. 48 at ECF pp. 3–7.) “Governmental actors performing discretionary
functions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages ‘insofar as
their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Abbott v. Sangamon
Cnty., Ill., 705 F.3d 706, 713 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457
U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Qualified immunity protects government actors from all
the rigors of litigation, not only liability. See Estate of Miller, ex rel. Bertram v.
Tobiasz, 680 F.3d 984, 988 (7th Cir. 2012) (applying Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S.
194, 200 (2001)). So, although the Court ordinarily would wait until the close
of discovery to consider summary judgment, qualified immunity presents a
reason to reverse that sequence. Id.
Even so, the Magistrate Judge finds no reason to stay Becker’s requests.
Qualified immunity only protects individuals. Becker maintains three active
claims—battery, negligence, and negligent supervision—against the City, and
the Magistrate finds that each of Becker’s requests is relevant to at least one of
those claims. Therefore, even if the Magistrate granted qualified immunity as

4

to all claims against Officer Elfreich, the City would remain obligated to
respond to all of Becker’s requests. Because no resolution of the qualified
immunity question would relieve the Defendants of any discovery burden, the
Magistrate finds no reason to stay discovery.1
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge GRANTS Becker’s

motion to compel. The Magistrate orders the Defendants to satisfy Becker’s
requests by May 29, 2014. Because the deadline to complete discovery was
March 1, and because this is the only discovery dispute the parties have
raised, the Magistrate orders all other discovery closed at this time. The
Magistrate also orders Becker to respond to the Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Filing No. 26) by June 19, 2014.
SO ORDERED this 29th day of April, 2014.

__________________________
William G. Hussmann, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Served electronically on all ECF-registered counsel of record.

Whether trial should be stayed pending resolution (including appeals) of the qualified
immunity issue is a separate question and one the parties may raise in a separate
motion.
1

5