Stiriling et al v. St. Louis County Police Department et al

Filing 414

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER [PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Stirilings motion (Doc. No. 371) to withdraw the motion (Doc. No. 370) for issuance of a subpoena to the Ferguson PoliceDepartment is GRANTED, and the motion for issuance of the subpoena (Doc. No. 370) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff Stirilings unopposed motion (Doc. No. 372) filed on August 18, 2004, for issuance of a subpoena directed to the City of Berkeley, Missouri, Police D epartment to produce copies of documents related to any citizen complaints filed against Defendant Robert Rinck while he was a Berkeley police officer is GRANTED to the extent that any such complaints involve the alleged violations of individuals civil rights. ( Response to Court due by 10/24/2014.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 10/17/14. (JWJ)

Z

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMISON STIRILING, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

vs.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.

4:11CV01932 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on several pretrial motions filed by Plaintiff Jamison
Stiriling,
Upon review of the record,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Stiriling’s motion (Doc. No. 371) to
withdraw the motion (Doc. No. 370) for issuance of a subpoena to the Ferguson Police
Department is GRANTED, and the motion for issuance of the subpoena (Doc. No. 370)
is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff Stiriling’s unopposed motion (Doc. No.

372) filed on August 18, 2004, for issuance of a subpoena directed to the City of
Berkeley, Missouri, Police Department to produce copies of documents related to any
citizen complaints filed against Defendant Robert Rinck while he was a Berkeley police
officer is GRANTED to the extent that any such complaints involve the alleged
violations of individuals’ civil rights.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Stiriling’s motion (Doc. No. 400) to

exclude Defendants’ use at trial of his deposition is GRANTED insofar as any
deposition testimony related to or based upon the National Crime Information Center

report in question, and DENIED in all other regards.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Stiriling’s motion (Doc. No. 401)
for a hearing on discovery issues is DENIED at this point.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Stiriling’s motion (Doc. No. 402)
for sanctions against Defendants and their counsel for counsel’s failure to provide
Plaintiffs with copies of subpoenas served on two nonparties for the production of
records is DENIED. Counsel for Defendants represents that the omission was
unintentional and that he has provided Plaintiff with copies of the records that were
obtained pursuant to the subpoenas. Counsel for Defendants is reminded of his
obligation to provide Plaintiffs with notice of subpoenas before they are served.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Stiriling’s motion (Doc. No. 398) to
compel production of copies of the above-reference subpoenas is GRANTED. Counsel
for Defendants represents that he asked the nonparties for copies of the subpoenas and
will provide Plaintiffs with copies of the subpoenas “that come into their possession.”
The Court is hardpressed to understand why counsel for Defendants cannot immediately
provide Plaintiffs with copies of the subpoenas, and orders counsel to do so, and to file
notice of compliance with the Court within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.

___________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 17th day of October, 2014.