O'Rourke v. King et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth above. No later than January 5, 2018, Defendants shall either produce any outstanding documents in their possession, cus tody, or control responsive to the discovery requests at issue in Plaintiffs motion, or if all such documents have been produced, produce a letter to Plaintiff certifying that fact.. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/22/2017. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SCOTT O’ROURKE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID KING, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16-CV-01795-AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arises out of the arrest, detention,
prosecution, and acquittal of Plaintiff following his engagement in a political protest on
May 24, 2012. The matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 38)
to compel discovery responses from Defendants. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have
refused to produce all documents in their possession, custody, and control responsive to
discovery requests related to Plaintiff’s claims for municipal liability. Plaintiff also
argues that Defendant Daniel Isom, sued solely in his official capacity as Chief of
Police and represented by the same counsel as the other Defendants, has failed to
respond at all to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories and first requests for production.1
In response, Defendants state that they have fully responded to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests. Defendants do not specifically address the lack of discovery

1

Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests state that they are on
behalf of all named Defendants other than Isom.
1

responses by Isom, but they argue that by letter to Plaintiff dated November 1, 2017,
they confirmed that they had “no more documents to produce that are relevant to the
claims that [Plaintiff] has against the defendant officers,” and they had “no more
relevant records to produce that pertain to the incident alleged in [Plaintiff’s]
complaint.” ECF No. 43 at 3. Defendants argue that the motion to compel should be
denied because Defendants have responded to the discovery requests and discovery is
now closed.
Upon careful consideration of the discovery requests at issue in Plaintiff’s
motion and the parties’ arguments, the Court believes that the discovery requests are
relevant to Plaintiff’s municipal liability claim and within the scope of discovery
permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although Defendants assert
that they have fully responded to the discovery requests, Defendants’ November 1,
2017, letter does not make clear whether the records produced were limited to records
relating only to the incident involving Plaintiff, or whether the records were also fully
responsive to the requests related to Plaintiff’s municipal liability claim based on policy
and custom. Accordingly, the Court will order Defendants to either promptly produce
any outstanding documents in their possession, custody, or control responsive to the
discovery requests at issue in Plaintiff’s motion, or if all such documents have been
produced, to produce a letter to Plaintiff certifying that fact.
The Court will otherwise deny Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s claim against Isom,
like his claims against the other Defendants named solely in their official capacities, is a
2

claim against the municipality. Banks v. Slay, 875 F.3d 876, 881 (8th Cir. 2017) (“[A]n
official-capacity suit is a suit against a government entity in all respects other than
name.”) (citation omitted). The municipality has adequately responded to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests except to the extent set forth above.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part, as set forth above. No later than January 5, 2018,
Defendants shall either produce any outstanding documents in their possession,
custody, or control responsive to the discovery requests at issue in Plaintiff’s motion, or
if all such documents have been produced, produce a letter to Plaintiff certifying that
fact.

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 22nd day of December, 2017.

3