Drury v. Dziwanowski et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying P. Dziwanowski's 18 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 8/29/2016. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EDWIN DRURY

*
Plaintiff

*

vs.

*

OFFICER P. DZIWANOWSKI, et al.
Defendants
*

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-15-3845

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: SUBPOENA
The Court has before it the Motion for Protective Order
Regarding Subpoena Duces Tecum to Chief Altomare [ECF No. 18]
and the materials submitted relating thereto.

The Court finds

that a hearing is unnecessary.
In this case, Plaintiff Edwin Drury asserted state and
federal law claims against Anne Arundel County, Maryland (“the
County”) and Defendants Officer P. Dziwanowski and Corporal W.
Hicks (the “Officers”) in connection with certain events
occurring on or about April 13, 2014.

It suffices herein to

refer to the claims generally as based upon the officers'
alleged violations of Drury's rights by arresting and charging
him in regard to an alleged theft of trailer.

1

*

In the Memorandum and Order Re: Pending Motions [ECF No.
13], the Court dismissed all claims against the County,
bifurcated and stayed discovery regarding any Monell1 claims,
By the subpoena at issue, Plaintiff seeks to have the
County Chief of Police, a nonparty, produce certain materials
relating to the training of police officers.
The Officers – not the subpoenaed witness – have filed the
instant motion.

While this might itself be a basis for the

denial of the motion, the Court will assume for the present
that, since the officers' counsel is a County Attorney, the
Chief of Police would join in the motion.
The motion, does not present facts establishing the
compliance would be unduly burdensome.

Moreover, the subpoena

is not violative of the stay of discovery on Monell issues.
Indeed, the Plaintiff is not claiming that the County
inadequately trained the officers.

Rather, the Plaintiff's

claim is that the training was adequate but, for various
reasons, the Officers' alleged failure to comply with the
training would be relevant to Plaintiff's claims against them.
The Court's relevance determination will require consideration
of the Officers' and Plaintiffs contentions regarding the claims
at issue.

1

Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. Of City of New York, 436 U.S.
658, 691 (1978)
2

On August 25, 2016, the Officers filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment [ECF No. 21].

The briefing of this motion will be

pertinent to the Court's decision as to the enforcement of the
subpoena at issue.

Plaintiff may, in response to the summary

judgment motion, in the context of the Officers' contentions,
state the grounds for his position that the materials sought by
the subpoena at issue will be material to the case.

Of course,

in the summary judgment context, Drury may rely upon a
reasonable assumption of what would be shown by the documents at
issue.

Compare, Rule 56(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For the foregoing reasons:
1. The Motion for Protective Order Regarding Subpoena
Duces Tecum to Chief Altomare [ECF No. 18] is DENIED.
2. Chief Altomare, while remaining subject to the
subpoena at issue, may defer compliance pending
further Order of the Court.

SO ORDERED, this Monday, August 29, 2016.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

3