HURT et al v. VANTLIN et al

Filing 231

ORDER - On June 6, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order, granting in part and denying in part a Motion to Compel previously filed by Plaintiffs. [Filing No. 212 (granting in part and denying in part Filing No. 174).] The Defendants related to the City of Evansville (the "Evansville Defendants") object to a portion of the Magistrate Judge's Order requiring them to answer three interrogatories. [Filing No. 212.] Plaintiffs oppose the Evansville Defendants' Objection, and ask this Court to order the City of Evansville1 (the "City") to produce the interrogatory responses within 14 days. [Filing No. 226.] For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Evansville Defendants' Objectio n. [Filing No. 218 (unredacted sealed version of motion); Filing No. 220 (redacted public version of motion). For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES the Evansville Defendants' Objection. [Filing No. 218.] Pursuant to the Magistrate J udge's Order, [Filing No. 212 at 5], Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to Plaintiffs' Third Set of Interrogatories Nos. 5, 6, and 7 is GRANTED. The City is ORDERED to comply within fourteen days of the date of this Order. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/20/2016. (BRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
EVANSVILLE DIVISION
WILLIAM HURT,
DEADRA HURT,
ANDREA HURT,
DEBBIE HURT,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JEFF VANTLIN,
JACK SPENCER,
WILLIAM ARBAUGH,
JASON PAGETT,
LARRY NELSON,
RICHARD BLANTON,
DAN DEYOUNG,
CITY OF EVANSVILLE,
MATTHEW WISE,
ZACHARY JONES,
AMY BURROWS-BECKHAM,
Defendants.

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

No. 3:14-cv-00092-JMS-MPB

ORDER
On June 6, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order, granting in part and
denying in part a Motion to Compel previously filed by Plaintiffs. [Filing No. 212 (granting in
part and denying in part Filing No. 174).] The Defendants related to the City of Evansville (the
“Evansville Defendants”) object to a portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Order requiring them to
answer three interrogatories. [Filing No. 212.] Plaintiffs oppose the Evansville Defendants’
Objection, and ask this Court to order the City of Evansville1 (the “City”) to produce the
interrogatory responses within 14 days. [Filing No. 226.] For the reasons that follow, the Court

1

The interrogatories at issue were directed solely at the City. [Filing No. 175-2.]

denies the Evansville Defendants’ Objection.2 [Filing No. 218 (unredacted sealed version of
motion); Filing No. 220 (redacted public version of motion).]
A. Standard of Review
A pretrial, non-dispositive matter, such as a discovery motion, may be referred to the
assigned magistrate judge for decision. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a). Any timely objections to the
magistrate judge’s order will be considered, and the Court will “modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(a). Under the clear error
standard, the Court will not reverse the decision unless it is “left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Kanter v. C.I.R., 590 F.3d 410, 417 (7th Cir. 2009)
(citation omitted).
B. Discussion3
The Evansville Defendants object to the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Order
compelling them to answer three interrogatories regarding certain post-incident allegations that
Plaintiffs contend relate to their malicious prosecution claim. [Filing No. 220.] The Evansville
Defendants emphasize that the key events for a malicious prosecution claim in this litigation
happened in 2012 and the interrogatories seek information related to a separate criminal
investigation against a non-party in 2014. [Filing No. 220 at 4-7.] They conclude that the
discovery sought is irrelevant and emphasize that the Magistrate Judge’s decision cites a case
where the discovery involved “a near identical crime committed by the same individual a few

Plaintiffs have not objected to the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying two other
requests from their Motion to Compel. [Filing No. 226.] Thus, the Court will not address those
requests or the Magistrate Judge’s resolution of them.
2

Because certain portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, the Evansville Defendants’ Objection,
and certain corresponding exhibits are being maintained under seal, the Court will only detail
specific facts as necessary to address the parties’ arguments.
3

2

months after the crime for which he was being charged.” [Filing No. 220 at 6 (citing United States
v. Anifowoshe, 307 F.3d 643, 647 (7th Cir. 2002)).] They distinguish the circumstances at issue
and argue that the discovery sought is too remote to be relevant. [Filing No. 220 at 6-7.] Thus,
the Evansville Defendants ask the Court to vacate the Magistrate Judge’s Order. [Filing No. 220.]
In response, Plaintiffs emphasize the liberal nature of discovery and direct the Court to
discovery already provided to them in December 2015 that underlies the current dispute. [Filing
No. 226 at 2-3.] Plaintiffs emphasize that the discovery they seek is “highly relevant” to their
malicious prosecution claim against Defendant Jeff Vantlin because it goes to the element of
malice. [Filing No. 226 at 3-4.] They also argue that the discovery may be relevant to their
conspiracy claim as well as their Monell claim against the City, which they alleged failed to
adequately supervise its officers. [Filing No. 226 at 4.]
In reply, the Evansville Defendants again argue that the sought discovery is too remote to
be relevant. [Filing No. 228 at 1-2.] They contend that Plaintiffs are on “a fishing expedition to
place meat on bare-boned claims . . . .” [Filing No. 228.] Thus, the Evansville Defendants ask the
Court to vacate the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s decision ordering them to respond to the
interrogatories at issue. [Filing No. 228 at 3.]
To state a malicious prosecution claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that,
among other things, “he has satisfied the elements of a state law cause of action for malicious
prosecution.” Welton v. Anderson, 770 F.3d 670, 674 (7th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Under
Indiana law, one of the elements of malicious prosecution is that the defendant acted maliciously
in instituting or causing to be instituted an action against the plaintiff. Id. Malice may be shown
“by evidence of personal animosity or inferred from a complete lack of probable cause or a failure
to conduct an adequate investigation under the circumstances.”
3

Id. (citation omitted).

A

conclusory statement that a defendant acted with malice is insufficient to support a claim. Id. Put
another way, “[a]bsent facts demonstrating the requisite malice element,” a plaintiff’s malicious
prosecution claim fails. Id.
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that evidence of another act may be admissible
for the purpose of proving motive or intent. “[B]y its very terms, 404(b) does not distinguish
between ‘prior’ and ‘subsequent’ acts. The critical question is whether the evidence is sufficiently
probative of a matter within the rule’s purview. Depending upon the factual circumstances, the
chronological relationship of the charged offense and the other act may well have some bearing
on this inquiry, but it is not necessarily dispositive.” United States v. Anifowoshe, 307 F.3d 643,
647 (7th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
The Court disagrees with the Evansville Defendants that the three interrogatories at issue
are part of a discovery fishing expedition by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs cite discovery produced by the
City in December 2015 directly linking Defendant Vantlin to a decision made in a 2014 criminal
investigation into a non-party for a possible crime that involved one of the Plaintiffs. [Filing No.
126-1 (redacted).] The interrogatories at issue in the underlying discovery dispute ask about that
document and who was involved in the investigation and decisions in the 2014 investigation.
[Filing No. 175-2.] As the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, Plaintiffs’ interrogatories are
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because even if the
investigation post-dates the time period on which Plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claim is based,
the evidence sought goes to the malice element of that claim because it may show personal
animosity. [See Filing No. 212 at 4-5.] The Court rejects the Evansville Defendants’ argument
that the discovery should not be allowed simply because it may only involve one claim, one
Plaintiff, and one Defendant. Moreover, as Plaintiffs point out, if the discovery reveals that other
4

Defendants were involved in the investigation at issue, such evidence may support their conspiracy
claim. [Filing No. 226 at 4.]
Because the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on the discovery dispute to which the Evansville
Defendants’ object was not clearly erroneous—and, in fact, the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusion—the Court denies the Evansville Defendants’ Objection. [Filing No. 218.]
C. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES the Evansville Defendants’ Objection.
[Filing No. 218.] Pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, [Filing No. 212 at 5], Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel as to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories Nos. 5, 6, and 7 is GRANTED.
The City is ORDERED to comply within fourteen days4 of the date of this Order.

_______________________________

Date: July 20, 2016

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Electronic Distribution to Registered Attorneys via CM/ECF

The Magistrate Judge’s Order gave the City thirty days to comply. [Filing No. 212 at 5.] In light
of the time the parties took to brief the Evansville Defendants’ Objection and various case
management deadlines in place, the Court has reduced the City’s time to comply to fourteen days.
4

5