Nance v. City of West Point, et al

Filing 109

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motions 59 , 60 , 61 , 66 for the Court to Issue subpoenas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 3/31/2021. (cb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
CHARLES NANCE
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 1:19CV210-SA-RP

CITY OF WEST POINT, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS [59], [60], [61], [66]
FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff’s motions [59], [60], [61], [66] for the court
to issue subpoenas. In the first three motions, [59], [60], [61], the plaintiff seeks an order from the
court compelling Defendant Officer Kyle Eaves and the plaintiff’s former girlfriends, Leigh Ann Hall
and Britney Williams to appear at his deposition. As the defendants argued in their response to these
three motions, “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this Court’s Scheduling Order make no
provision for subpoenaing other parties (Eaves) nor third-parties (Hall and Williams) to attend a party’s
personal deposition. You cannot make other people come to your deposition.” Doc. 65 at 2.

In his Motion [66] for Subpoena Duces Tecum, the plaintiff seeks documents regarding the
performance history and disciplinary files of the two defendant law enforcement officers. The
plaintiff’s claim against these officers is that they singled him out, individually, for harassment based
upon his race. Unsubstantiated complaints in personnel files are not discoverable; as such, the only
such complaints the plaintiff might obtain would be successful complaints regarding the officers’
conduct towards suspects sharing the plaintiff’s race. Sanford v. City of Detroit, 355 F. Supp 3d 619,
621-22 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (unsubstantiated complaints are not discoverable). In any event, it appears
from the pending motions for summary judgment that the deciding issues in this case are procedural, rather
than substantive, in nature. As such, the discovery the plaintiff seeks is not relevant to the dispositive
issues in this case, and should be denied, without prejudice, for that reason.

For the reasons set forth above, the instant motions [59], [60], [61] to compel the attendance of

others at the plaintiff’s deposition is DENIED. The plaintiff’s motion [66] for a subpoena duces
tecum is also DENIED, but without prejudice to his ability to re-urge it should the case move forward
after summary judgment on one or more substantive issues.
SO ORDERED, this, the 31st day of March, 2021.

/s/ Roy Percy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE