Beard et al v. Hawkins et al

Filing 124

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's 100 Motion to Compel AND GRANTING PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's 104 Motion to Compel - Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TONY DEWAYNE BEARD, JR.,
a legally incapacitated person,
by and through JOHNETTE FORD,
his legal guardian,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 14-13465
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

ERIC HAWKINS, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST AND SECOND MOTIONS TO COMPEL [R. 100; R. 104]
I.

INTRODUCTION
Johnette Ford brought this action on behalf of her legally

incapacitated adult son Tony Beard, Jr. against the City of Southfield and
several current and former members of the Southfield Police Department
(“defendants”) for allegedly violating his constitutional rights in connection
with a traffic stop. Before the Court are two motions to compel discovery
filed by Beard. [R. 100; R. 104]. For the reasons below, the Court
GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART each of these motions.

II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Beard’s First Motion to Compel [R. 100]

In his first motion to compel, Beard seeks responses to his Fourth Set
of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. [R. 100].
Below, the Court summarizes those requests and provides its disposition:
• Interrogatory 1: Identify the geographic boundaries
of the City of Southfield/City of Southfield Police
Department during the period of 2009 to 2013. [R.
107-3, PgID 1721].
o Disposition: Denied. The City of Southfield
sufficiently responded by producing a map
that outlines the boundaries of the City. [Id.,
1721 & 1728].
• Interrogatory 2: Specify the City of Southfield Police
Department Policy Number, or the specific language
contained therein, that describes the geographic
boundaries that City of Southfield Police
Department personnel were instructed to adhere to
during the period of 2009 to 2013. [Id., PgID 172122].
2

o Disposition: Granted. Defendants’ objection
that it has given Beard a full list of internal
policies of the Southfield Police Department
and several of the policies themselves is not a
sufficient reason to refuse to specify whether
any of the policies lay out the defendants’
jurisdiction or geographic boundaries since
defendants do not contend that specifying any
such policy would be unduly burdensome.
The Court rejects defendants’ objection to
relevance based upon its own litigation
position that the Heck doctrine applies. See
Lucas v. Protective Life Ins. Co., No.
CIV.A.4:08CV00059-JH, 2010 WL 569743, at
*3 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2010) (rejecting
argument that underwriting materials were not
discoverable based upon the insurer’s
“unilateral decision that these other guidelines
are not relevant to the claims and defenses in
this action.”). Defendants have not set forth a
3

valid objection to this request and must
provide Beard with this information by June 3,
2016.
• Interrogatories 3 and 4: Identify what exceptions, if
any, City of Southfield police officers were allowed
to pursue an individual outside of their geographic
boundaries during the period of 2009 to 2013, and
specify the statutory authority for those exceptions.
[Id., PgID 1722-23].
o Disposition: Granted in Part. The Court
construes this as a “contention interrogatory”
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(2)
which states, “[a]n interrogatory is not
objectionable merely because it asks for an
opinion or contention that relates to fact or the
application of law to fact . . . .” “The general
view is that contention interrogatories are a
perfectly permissible form of discovery, to
which a response ordinarily would be
required.” Starcher v. Corr. Med. Sys., Inc.,
4

144 F.3d 418, 421 n. 2 (6th Cir. 1998). Thus,
defendants must specify the legal bases for
their claim that they were authorized to
operate outside of the City of Southfield
boundaries when pursuing and arresting
Beard in September 2011. However, the
Court denies Beard’s broadly drafted request
for every exception to operating within the
City’s boundaries from 2009 to 2013.
Defendants’ relevance objection due to the
Heck doctrine is rejected as being based upon
their own litigation position. Defendants must
provide Beard with the more limited
information described above by June 3, 2016.
• Interrogatory 5: Identify the number of instances
from 2009 to 2013 that a Southfield police officer
traveled outside of the City of Southfield’s
geographic boundaries to stop someone who had
not yet entered the City’s boundaries. [Id., PgID
1724-25].
5

o Disposition: Denied. The City of Southfield
responded that it did not maintain such
records or statistics. [Id., PgID 1725]. In his
reply brief, Beard cites evidence that the City
of Southfield maintains records of all of its
police reports, arrest reports, incident reports,
citation reports, etc. [R. 112, PgID 1885-86].
However, Beard’s request broadly requests
records and statistics for every stop, whether
or not it resulted in an arrest or incident report.
Moreover, Beard has failed to articulate how
requiring the City to filter through every police
record from 2009 to 2013 to find instances
where an officer traveled outside City limits,
and then redact any sensitive portions of
those records, would result in discovery that is
both relevant and “proportional to the needs of
the case.” Fed. R. Civ. 26(b)(1).
•

Request for Production of Documents 1: With
respect to the answer to Interrogatory 5, produce
6

copies of all police reports of stops where an officer
traveled outside of the geographic boundaries of
Southfield to make the stop. [R. 107-3, PgID 1725].
o Disposition: Denied. Same as Interrogatory 5.
• Interrogatory 6: With regard to Interrogatory 5 and
Request for Production 1: (a) what department with
the City of Southfield collects, maintains and stores
that information; and (b) if the information sought in
Request for Production 1 is unavailable, please
explain why.
o Disposition: Denied. Same as Interrogatory 5.
Beard’s first motion to compel [R. 100] is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART, as outlined above.
B.

Beard’s Second Motion to Compel [R. 104]

In his second motion to compel, Beard seeks responses to his Fifth
Request for Production of Documents. [R. 104]. Below, the Court
summarizes those requests and provides its disposition:
• Request for Production of Documents 1: With respect to the
deposition testimony of Chief of Police Eric Hawkins and
Retired Deputy Chief Jeffrey Tinsman, provide the following
7

materials:
o (a) A complete and unredacted copy of the City of
Southfield Police Department’s Internal Investigation
Folder related to Beard’s traffic stop and subsequent
Citizen’s Complaint. [R. 104-2, PgID 1668].
 Disposition: Denied. Beard previously requested
the Internal Investigation folder and the City of
Southfield produced a redacted version on
December 21, 2015. [R. 109-3, PgID 1808-1810,
1821-42]. Beard did not object to the redacted
version. Instead, he served another discovery
request asking for an unredacted copy. In its
response to Beard’s motion to compel, the City of
Southfield provides case law supporting its right to
redact portions of the Internal Investigation folder
[R. 109, PgID 1784-88], and Beard fails to even
discuss the privilege issue or the fact that the City
previously produced a redacted copy.
o (b) A copy of the specific law and/or practice established
through the Police Department’s policies that was in effect
8

on the date of the underlying traffic stop, September 6,
2011, which Chief of Police Eric Hawkins and Retired
Deputy Chief Jeffrey Tinsman testified gave Southfield
police officers authority to act outside the City of
Southfield’s geographic boundaries.
 Disposition: Granted. The Court rejects defendants’
relevancy objection to the request for specific
authority that supports Chief Hawkins and Deputy
Tinsman’s contention that officers were authorized
to act outside of City of Southfield boundaries. This
request does not equate to asking defendants to
conduct research on Beard’s behalf; it is asking for
the authority supporting defendants’ contentions.
The City of Southfield must provide Beard with any
such written authority that is within its possession,
custody or control by June 3, 2016.
Beard’s second motion to compel [R. 104] is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART, as explained above.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Beard’s motions to compel [R. 100; R.
9

104] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as specified above.
Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.2, the filing of an appeal to the District Judge
does not stay defendants’ obligation to comply with this Order.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: May 27, 2016
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). Unless ordered otherwise by the Court,
the filing of an appeal to the District Judge does not stay the parties’
obligations in this Order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 27, 2016.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

10