Paul v. City of Port Allen et al

Filing 45

ORDER: Following a discovery request from the pltf, counsel for deft WBR Sheriff Mike Cazes provided the court with the personnel file of deft Casey Batts for an in camera inspection. The court determined that 5 sets of documents would be relevant evidence to pltfs claims or a defts defenses. Therefore, they are discoverable under FRCP 26, and shall be produced to the pltf. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 8/21/2009. (JDL, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA STACEY L. PAUL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER 08-595-JJB-SCR CITY OF PORT ALLEN, ET AL ORDER Following a discovery request from the plaintiff, counsel for defendant West Baton Rouge Sheriff Mike Cazes provided the court with the entire personnel filed of defendant Casey Batts for an in camera inspection.1 As to defendant Batts, the plaintiff made the following allegations: 19. Your Petitioner was transported to the West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center. In retribution for the injury sustained by Thompson, Your Petitioner was beaten by Deputy Batts, Deputy Bradford, Deputy Johnston and Deputy Gary Frith who are each employed by the West Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office. Arceneaux, Thompson, and Jones encouraged the beating. The force used by Batts and others was excessive. Your Petitioner never did anything at the parish detention center at the time he was beaten to necessitate the use of any force. ... 22. Based upon information and belief, defendant Thompson, Batts, Bradford, Johnston, Jones, Frith and Arceneaux have similarly struck other citizens, suspects, prisoners and inmates or permitted the striking without provocation or just cause; however, no adequate investigation, disciplinary or remedial actions has ever been taken against them. Nor has the city, its Chief of 1 Record document number 44. Police, the warden, nor the sheriff taken adequate disciplinary measures against officers and deputies despite that the city and sheriff having knowledge of and being in a position to be aware of constitutional violations committed by them and other law enforcement officers and correctional guards. Defendants knew or should have know of pervasive physical abuse administered by police officers, deputies and guards of inmates. Based on other discovery in the case, by letter dated August 7, 2009, counsel for the plaintiff requested the court to also examine the defendant's personnel file for any documents relevant to diagnosis or treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. Because it is apparent from a review of the pleadings that Batts' credibility will be a materials issue in this case, his personnel filed was also reviewed to determine whether any documents in it would be relevant to that issue. Pursuant to these requests the court determined that five sets of documents from Batts' personnel file could be relevant evidence and hence discoverable under Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P. These are: 1) the June 22, 2006 letter from Sheriff Michael B. Cazes to defendant Batts and the Employee Warning Record the same date. 2) the Employee Warning Record dated 01/29/04 and the related five page incident report the same date. 3) the 12-12-01 memorandum from Capt. Cazes "RE: SUSPENSION, DY. CASEY BATTS," along with the 12/10/01 report from Capt. Jewel Cazes and the Daily Sign In Sheet for 12-8-01 and for 12-9-01 which are attached to his report and the memorandum. 4) PART A - MEDICAL HISTORY form, pages 1 and 2 (undated, apparently completed as part of an application for medical insurance coverage). 2 5) BRC Internal Medicine Progress Notes, dated "8/19/02," pages 1 and 2. These five sets of documents are responsive to the plaintiff's discovery request and relevant to the plaintiff's claims or a defendant's defenses. Therefore, they are discoverable under Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., and shall be produced to the plaintiff.2 Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 21, 2009. STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Neither the defendant's personnel file nor the documents described above will be filed in the record. However, the will be retained for the purpose of review by the district judge in the event of any appeal of this order pursuant to Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. They will be returned to counsel for defendant West Baton Rouge Sheriff Mike Cazes if all parties agree they may be returned. 3 2

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?