Williams v. Connick et al
Filing
175
ORDER & REASONS granting 165 MOTION to Set Aside re 164 Order on Motion to Quash, Order on Motion for Protective Order, filed by Michael Williams. ORDER that the portion of the Magistrate Judge's 6/25/2014 Order granting the motions to quash on relevance grounds is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/11/2014. (NEF: MAG-3)(caa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL WILLIAMS
CIVIL ACTION
v.
NO. 12-1274
DISTRICT ATTORNEY PAUL CONNICK, JR., ET AL.
SECTION "F"
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the
Magistrate Judge’s Order granting in part the non-party movants and
Jefferson Parish District Attorney’s (“JPDA”) motions to quash. For
the reasons that follow, the plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, and
Magistrate Judge Knowles’ June 25, 2014 Order is REVERSED and
REMANDED for additional proceedings.
Background
This civil rights case arises out of a wrongful conviction of
Michael Williams, who was charged with murder, tried, convicted,
and sentenced to life in prison. He served over 15 years in prison
for murdering Michelle Gallagher before Christopher Landry—on whose
testimony
the
State’s
case
hinged—recanted
his
testimony
and
admitted to lying to both the grand jury and to the judge during
Williams'
murder
trial.
Mr.
Williams
alleges
that
Landry’s
testimony was actively shaped by police and prosecutors in advance
1
of trial, and that no physical evidence linked Williams to the
crime. In a recanting affidavit, Landry admitted that he had lied
because Detective Grey Thurman had threatened to charge Landry with
the crime unless he inculpated Mr. Williams. Additionally, Williams
alleges that the State failed to disclose numerous pieces of
exculpatory evidence that directly undercut the State's theory at
trial.1
It is Williams' position that his ordeal was the result of a
concerted bad faith effort by the police and district attorney, to
falsely convict him of murder, in violation of his constitutional
and legal rights. Williams filed suit on May 16, 2012, and, after
some motion practice, his § 1983 claims against Jefferson Parish
District Attorney Paul Connick, Jr., in his official capacity;
Detective Grey Thurman, in his individual capacity; and Sheriff
Newell
Normand,
in
his
official
capacity
as
Sheriff
of
the
Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, remain active. Against Paul
Connick, Jr., in his official capacity, Williams asserts a claim of
municipal liability for failure to train and for maintaining an
unconstitutional custom and deliberate indifference with respect to
the discharge of Brady obligations.
On May 1, 2014, Williams issued subpoenas duces tecum on the
Louisiana Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) and the Louisiana
1
The alleged facts of this case are more completely
summarized in Williams v. Connick, No. 12-1274, 2014 WL 172520
(E.D.La. Jan. 15, 2014).
2
Attorney
documents
Disciplinary
related
to
Board
18
(“LADB”),in
former
and
which
current
he
seeks
Louisiana
all
state
attorneys. The ODC and LADB filed nearly identical motions to quash
the subpoenas, arguing that the subpoenas (1) require production
more than 100 miles from where they reside and regularly transact
business in violation of Rule 45(c)(2)(A); (2) seek confidential and therefore privileged - documents, and (3) are unduly burdensome
in its request for documents that are publicly available online.
Connick also filed a motion in support of the motions to quash,
contending that the subpoenas exceed the temporal scope outlined by
Magistrate Knowles prior discovery orders, and seek irrelevant
documents.
On June 25, 2014, Magistrate Judge Knowles granted in part the
motions to quash, determining that the confidential documents
sought by Williams are irrelevant, but that the request for public
records is not unduly burdensome. The right to modify and repropound the subpoenas was reserved for Williams, so long as they
(1) designate a place for production within 100 miles of ODC and
the LADB; (2) are temporally limited in compliance with the court’s
May 25, 2014 Order; and (3) seek only public, non-confidential
documents. Williams now asks that the Court set aside that portion
of the Magistrate Judge’s Order granting the motion to quash on
relevance grounds.
3
I. Standard of Review
Pursuant to Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Williams
requests that the Court set aside Magistrate Judge Knowles' June
25, 2014 Order, in which he granted in part the motions to quash
filed by the ODC, LABD, and Connick.
A
magistrate
judge
is
afforded
broad
discretion
in
the
resolution of non-dispositive motions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
If a party objects to a magistrate
judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter, the Court will disturb
a magistrate’s ruling only when the ruling is “clearly erroneous or
is contrary to law.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also Castillo v.
Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995).
A finding is "clearly
erroneous" when the reviewing Court is "left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
United States
v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 240 (5th Cir. 2008)(quoting United States.
v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
II. Law and Application
The plaintiff challenges the portion of Magistrate Judge
Knowles' June 25 Order that granted the motions to quash filed by
the ODC, LADB, and the JPDA.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Connick v. Thompson,
Magistrate Judge Knowles concluded that the confidential documents
sought by Williams are irrelevant because they cannot independently
4
prove the deliberate indifference element of his Monell2 claim. 131
S.Ct. 1350 (2011). In Connick, the Supreme Court found that four
public and open reversals of convictions “could not have put [the
New Orleans District Attorney] on notice that the office’s Brady3
training was inadequate with respect to the sort of Brady violation
at issue.” 131 S.Ct. at 1360. As such, Magistrate Judge Knowles
reasoned
that
“surely
a
confidential
proceeding
about
which
[Connick] knew nothing would not be sufficient to put him on
notice. These documents are thus irrelevant to the Monell claim.”
Williams v. Connick, No. 12-1274, 2014 WL 2882943, at *4 (E.D.La.
June 25, 2014).
Williams contends that Magistrate Judge Knowles applied a
clearly erroneous relevance standard, and that his conclusion
improperly assumes that Connick could not or did not know about
disciplinary complaints against his subordinates. Movants and JPDA
counter
that
the
magistrate
judge
correctly
determined
this
information in his relevance ruling, and in the alternative, this
Court can affirm the Order on other grounds even if it finds the
Magistrate Judge’s Order to be clearly erroneous.
The Court finds that the magistrate judge clearly erred in
determining
that
the
requested
information
2
was
irrelevant.
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. Of City of N.Y., 436 U.S.
658 (1978).
3
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
5
Magistrate
Judge
Knowles
applied
a
demanding
relevance
test,
assessing the information sought in the subpoenas against the
possibility that it could independently satisfy the deliberate
indifference
element
of
Williams’
Monell
claim
-
a
standard
appropriate for the judge or jury at trial. Williams, on the other
hand, correctly identifies the appropriate standard of relevance in
the
context
admissible
of
at
discovery:
the
trial
“Relevant
if
the
information
discovery
need
appears
not
be
reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. In fact, Williams has enumerated a couple of ways
in which the discovery he seeks could possibly lead to evidence
admissible at trial: he could use the documents as a basis for
questioning witnesses about the alleged attorney misconduct, and
the documents may reveal involvement by JPDA supervisors in the
underlying disciplinary proceedings. He need not do more.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to set
aside the Magistrate Judge’s Order is GRANTED, the portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s June 25th Order granting the motion to quash on
relevance grounds is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED for
further proceedings consistent with this Order.4
4
Williams has yet to re-issue the subpoenas in compliance
with those parts of Magistrate Judge Knowles’ Order to which he
does not now seek review, namely, the 100 mile radius for the
delivery of discovery documents and the temporal scope of
discovery.
The Court declines to address the other grounds advanced
by the ODC, LABD, and the JPDA in their motions to quash. Thus, the
6
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 11, 2014
______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
question of whether the confidentiality accorded to LADB and ODC
files results in privilege in the context of a § 1983 action
remains unresolved. The Court is reluctant to rule on this issue in
light of the uncertain status of the yet-to-be-re-issued subpoenas
and the parties’ other disputes are better directed to Magistrate
Judge Knowles in the first instance.
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?