PENN v. KNOX COUNTY et al
Filing
119
AMENDED ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING APPEAL AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT granting 116 Motion to Stay; granting 117 Motion for Judgment By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (dfr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
CATHY PENN, in her capacity as
guardian of Matthew Lalli,
Plaintiff,
v.
KNOX COUNTY, et. al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 2:11-cv-00363-NT
AMENDED ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING
APPEAL AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Before the Court are the Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to enter final
judgment in favor of Knox County, Knox County Jail, John Hinkley, in his capacity
as administrator of the Knox County Jail, Kathy Carver, in her capacity as
assistant administrator of the Knox County Jail, and Donna Dennison, in her
capacity as Knox County Sheriff (collectively, the “Municipal Defendants”), and
corrections officer Julie Stilkey (ECF No. 117), and the Defendants’ motion for a
stay of discovery pending appeal (ECF No. 116).1 For the reasons stated below, the
Court GRANTS both motions.
In the first paragraph of the Plaintiff’s motion, she requests that the Court enter final
judgment in favor of Officer Heath IV. However, the Plaintiff omits any mention of Officer Heath IV
from her concluding paragraph and does not supply any argument concerning the claims against
him. Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not oppose the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
regarding the claims against Officer Heath IV. Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. 1 n.3 (ECF No.
92). For these reasons, the Court considers his inclusion in parts of this motion to be an oversight
and takes no action concerning his situation.
1
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 3, 2012, the Court issued an order (ECF No. 46) granting a joint
motion to bifurcate discovery on liability and damages (ECF No. 45), as the parties
represented that discovery on damages would be costly and might not be necessary
if summary judgment were granted to all the Defendants.
Discovery on liability has concluded. On September 30, 2013, the Court
issued an order granting summary judgment to the Municipal Defendants and to
corrections officers Julie Stilkey and Warren Heath IV (ECF No. 108). The order
denied summary judgment as to the remaining six defendants, Sergeant Dane
Winslow, Corporal Bradley Woll and Officers Robert Wood, Christopher Truppa,
Warren Heath III, and Angela Escorsio.
On October 21, 2013, Officers Winslow, Woll, and Escorsio filed a notice of
appeal challenging this Court’s rejection of their qualified immunity defense (ECF
No. 112).
They are entitled to an immediate appeal of the Court’s decision on
qualified immunity under the collateral order exception to final judgment rule. See
Torres v. Puerto Rico, 485 F.3d 5, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2007). Officers Wood, Truppa, and
Heath III are not bringing an appeal at this time.
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
By consent motion, the Plaintiff requests that the Court direct entry of final
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to the Municipal
Defendants and Officer Stilkey. Under Rule 54(b), the Court may direct final
2
judgment as to one or more of the claims or parties if the Court “expressly
determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
The First Circuit has prescribed a two-part test for reviewing a Rule 54(b)
certification. Under the first part of the test, the Court must determine whether the
judgment in question “has the requisite aspects of finality.” Niemic v. Galas, 286
Fed. Appx. 738, 739 (1st Cir. 2008). Here, this part of the test is easily satisfied, as
the judgment would dismiss all the claims against the Municipal Defendants and
Officer Stilkey.
Under the second part of the test, the Court must determine whether there is
no just reason for delay. Id. This inquiry requires examining two further factors: (1)
“any interrelationship or overlap among the various legal and factual issues
involved in the dismissed and pending claims”; and (2) “any equities and efficiencies
implicated by the requested piecemeal review.” Id. (quoting Credit Francais Int’l,
S.A. v. Bio-Vita, 78 F.3d 698, 706 (1st Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Regarding the first factor, the Plaintiff’s claim against both the Municipal
Defendants and Officer Stilkey involves facts closely intertwined with her claim
against Sergeant Winslow. Likewise, the same legal standards which apply to the
Plaintiff’s claims against Officer Stilkey also apply to the Plaintiff’s claims against
Corporal Woll, Sergeant Winslow, and Officer Escorsio.
Regarding the second factor, the First Circuit will already be reviewing this
case in connection with the appeal filed by Corporal Woll, Sergeant Winslow, and
Officer Escorsio. Entering final judgment against the Municipal Defendants and
3
Officer Stilkey will allow them to appeal the Court’s decision on summary judgment
at the same time and make it much more likely that this case can be resolved with
one appeal and one trial, rather than two appeals and, possibly, two trials. This is
likely to save all interested parties—the Plaintiff, the Defendants, the District
Court, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals—time and effort.
For these reasons, the Court finds there is no just reason for delay and enters
final judgment in favor of the Municipal Defendants and Officer Stilkey in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
MOTION FOR STAY OF DISCOVERY PENDING APPEAL
By consent motion, the Defendant requests that the Court continue the
existing stay of discovery concerning the extent of Plaintiff’s damages until any
appeals from the Court’s order on the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
are resolved.
As the Defendants inform the Court, the Defendants in this case are covered
under an insurance policy which has a $1 million limit that is “wasted,” or eroded,
by the costs of mounting a legal defense. The Defendants have no other insurance
covering the claims in this case.
Proceeding with discovery would force parties whose involvement in this case
may be completely vanquished by the decision on appeal to expend resources in the
meantime, as discovery continues, defending their positions on the question of
damages. By contrast, staying discovery would allow the parties latitude to reach a
settlement without spending more money than necessary on legal fees.
4
For these reasons, the Court continues the existing stay of discovery pending
resolution of the appeals of the Court’s order on summary judgment. See Hegarty v.
Somerset Cnty., 25 F.3d 17, 17-18 (1st Cir. 1994) (holding that a stay of discovery
“ordinarily must carry over through the appellate court’s resolution of [the]
question” where a defendant appeals a denial of qualified immunity) (emphasis in
the original).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s motion for
the Court to enter final judgment on all claims brought against the Municipal
Defendants and Officer Stilkey and the Defendant’s motion to stay discovery
pending the resolution of the parties’ appeals.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy Torresen
United States District Judge
Dated this 30th day of October, 2013.
5
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?