Watson v. Boyd et al

Filing 109

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Fred Watson's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 54 ) is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part as outlined above. Defendants shall supplement their responses within ten (10) days. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Fred Watson's Motion for Protective Order or, In the Alternative, Motion to Compel (ECF No. 56 ) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as outlined above. Defendants shall supplement their responses within ten (10) days. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of Ferguson, Missouri's Motion to Bifurcate Claims and to Stay Discovery and Trial (ECF No. 65 ) and Defendant Eddie Boyd's Motion to Join In and Adopt Defendant City of Ferguson's Moti on to Bifurcate Claims and to Stay Discovery and Trial (ECF No. 71 ) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 81 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery of Previousl y Taken Depositions (ECF No. 87 ) is DENIED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Deem Admitted Plaintiffs Request for Admissions Directed to Defendant City of Ferguson (ECF No. 89 ) is GRANTED, in part. Defendant City of Ferguson is ordered to respond to the Requests for Admissions within ten (10) days. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 04/05/2019. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
FRED WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
EDDIE BOYD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-2187 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Fred Watson's Motion to Compel (ECF No.
54), Plaintiff Fred Watson's Motion for Protective Order or, In the Alternative, Motion to
Compel (ECF No. 56), Defendant City of Ferguson, Missouri's Motion to Bifurcate Claims and
to Stay Discovery and Trial (ECF No. 65), Defendant Eddie Boyd's Motion to Join In and Adopt
Defendant City of Ferguson's Motion to Bifurcate Claims and to Stay Discovery and Trial (ECF
No. 71), Plaintiffs Motion to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 81), Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
Discovery of Previously Taken Depositions (ECF No. 87), and Plaintiffs Motion to Deem
Admitted Plaintiffs Request for Admissions Directed to Defendant City of Ferguson (ECF No.
89).

BACKGROUND
On August 1, 2012, Plaintiff Fred Watson ("Watson") was sitting in his car after a
basketball game at Forestwood Park. Watson alleges that Defendant Eddie Boyd ("Boyd"), an
on-duty Ferguson Police Department ("FPD") officer, aggressively accosted Watson. Watson
claims that when he asked Boyd for the grounds for this harassment, Boyd retaliated against him
by writing nine frivolous tickets against Watson, including a False Declaration/False Reports and

Failure to Comply ticket.

Watson asserts that Boyd acted pursuant to a FPD custom of

unconstitutional policing to generate revenue for the City of Ferguson. Watson filed this lawsuit
alleging a variety of claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983, including unlawful search and seizure,
unlawful retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and malicious prosecution against
Boyd, as well as a Monell claim against the City of Ferguson, based upon his arrest and the
citations issued by Boyd on August 1, 2012.
DISCUSSION

I.

Discovery from Defendant Boyd
A. LegalStandard

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to compel discovery.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(l) ("On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may

move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery."). Likewise, Rule 26 governs the scope
of discovery in federal matters:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
be discoverable.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l).
B. Internal Affairs and Personnel Files
"[A] plaintiff alleging police misconduct and a municipal policy condoning such alleged
misconduct is generally entitled to discovery of the internal affairs investigations conducted
regarding the incident complained." D.B. v. St. Charles Cty., No. 4:12-CV-654-JAR, 2013 WL

-2-

4042215, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 8, 2013) (citing Rohrbaugh v. Hall, Case No. 4:07-cv-00996ERW (Doc. No. 43) (E.D. Mo. Sept. 18, 2008)). Courts, however, have held that broad requests
for all internal affairs documents for several years are overly broad and not reasonably calculated
to lead to discoverable, admissible evidence. D.B. v. St. Charles Cty., No. 4:12-CV-654-JAR,
2013 WL 4042215, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 8, 2013); Rohrbaugh v. Hall, Case No. 4:07-cv00996-ERW (Doc. No. 43) (E.D. Mo. Sept. 18, 2008).
Watson asserts Boyd should produce his entire Ferguson, St. Ann, and St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department ("SLMPD") personnel files in his possession, allowing for the
redaction of his medical or financial information. (ECF No. 55 at 9). Watson claims that the
personnel files are relevant to his case to "establish a pattern of misconduct similar to what is
alleged in Plaintiff [sic] complaint; the files will allow Plaintiff to determine whether Boyd
provided truthful testimony about his departure from the St. Louis and St. Ann police
departments; and they are highly relevant to Plaintiffs claims that City of Ferguson failed to
screen, supervise, and discipline Officer Boyd." (ECF No. 55 at 9). Watson claims "Defendant
Boyd's counsel is already in possession of all of his personnel records minimizing any burden
created by production." (ECF No. 55 at 9). 1 Watson asserts that the Boyd has failed to produce
certain personnel documents, requiring this Motion to compel. (ECF No. 55 at 10).
The Court hereby orders Boyd to produce his personnel files, redacted for medical,
financial, or other sensitive information, to the extent that they are in Boyd's possession. Boyd
shall produce a privilege/confidentiality log for any documents not produced.

If Boyd has

previously produced all of his personnel documents, then he shall so state to Watson.

1

It is unclear to the Court how Watson can assert what is in Boyd's counsel's possession. Boyd
is not the custodian of records for any of his personnel files.

-3-

C. Deposition Transcript from a Former Federal Lawsuit
Watson seeks the deposition transcript of then-head of SLMPD Internal Affairs, John
Hayden, from CID. v. Boyd, 4:08cv788 (Mo. E.D.). Watson asserts CJD. v. Boyd "involved an
allegation that Defendant Boyd assaulted a juvenile and falsified the police report in an attempt
to charge the juvenile he assaulted with a crime." (ECF No. 55 at 11). According to a court
filing, Hayden testified in his deposition he "recommended that [the SLMPD Internal Affairs
complaint] against Boyd be sustained in that Boyd issued a false report and Boyd violated the
department's policy for abuse of prisoners." CJD. v. Boyd, 4:08cv788 (ECF No. 79-2, at 5,
i/12). Watson alleges that Hayden's deposition is "highly relevant to Boyd's habit of filing
malicious charges." (ECF No. 55 at 12). Watson argues Hayden's deposition testimony is "in
no way burdensome to produce, as Boyd's former counsel still maintains it in his possession."
(ECF No. 55 at 13). 2 Boyd contends that the allegations in the instant lawsuit are unrelated to
the allegations in CID. v. Boyd and, therefore, Watson's Motion to Compel should be denied.
In this case, Watson alleges Boyd "unlawfully arrested and initiated charges against Mr.
Watson without probable cause and in retaliation for Mr. Watson engaging in protected First
Amendment conduct." (ECF No. 35, ill). The Court has already ordered Boyd and the City of
Ferguson to produce Boyd's internal affairs records. Presumably, these records would include
the recommendation of Hayden. The Court holds that ordering the production of the entire
deposition transcript is cumulative and overbroad. The Court denies the Motion to Compel Boyd
to produce the deposition testimony of John Hayden from CJD. v. Boyd, 4:08cv788.

2

Again, Boyd is not the custodian of records for this prior lawsuit and it is unclear how Watson
allegedly knows that Boyd's counsel maintains this deposition.
-4-

II.

Discovery from City of Ferguson
A. Internal Affairs Files

Watson requests the City of Ferguson produce all citizen complaints and internal affairs
records from 2010-2017. Watson claims that the current agreement between the parties has
proved "unworkable" and City of Ferguson has not produced some relevant records. (ECF No.
55 at 18).
The Court holds the City of Ferguson should not be compelled to produce all of its
internal affairs files for an eight-year timeframe. Rather, City of Ferguson shall provide internal
affairs documents regarding Boyd and regarding "similar conduct" with respect to: complaints of
being charged with failure to obey or false declaration, complaints of retaliatory or excessive
ticketing, complaints of being seized and/or searched without probable cause, and complaints of
malicious prosecution. The Court orders City of Ferguson to engage in another search to ensure
that it has produced all relevant records and to produce those documents within ten days.
B. Email Correspondence
Watson asks the Court to compel the City of Ferguson to search and produce all relevant
emails in its possession related to Boyd. (ECF No. 55 at 18-19). Watson claims that its search
of the database for another litigation, Fant v. City of Ferguson, 4: 15cv253 (AGF) (hereinafter,
the "Fant" case) has yielded additional citizen and officer complaints against Boyd that were not
produced by the City of Ferguson in this case. (ECF No. 55 at 19). The Court holds that Watson
is entitled to search for emails related to Boyd's acts of misconduct or any complaints regarding
Boyd. The Court orders the City of Ferguson to conduct another research for any complaints
against or about Boyd or any allegations of misconduct.

-5-

C. Department of Justice Records

Request number 14 in Plaintiffs Second Request for Production directed to the City of
Ferguson requests documents listed in 41 separate subsections, all of which cite to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Report, which is attached to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

See ECF No. 35-4. Watson asserts that production of these documents is not burdensome
because the request "attempts to obtain proof of incidents that bear similarities to the allegations
in Mr. Watson's complaint."
The Court orders City of Ferguson to produce source documents from the DOJ Report
that relate to Boyd or that relate to "similar conduct" to the allegations in this case. Specifically,
complaints of being charged with failure to obey or false declaration, complaints of retaliatory or
excessive ticketing, complaints of being seized and/or searched without probable cause, and
complaints of malicious prosecution. If City of Ferguson is unable to identify the incident
discussed in the DOJ Report, then counsel shall discuss that issue with counsel for Watson and
attempt to discern the relevant incident and produce any relevant documents accordingly.
D. Records of Arrests Made by Boyd on the Day of Watson's Arrest

Request 12 of Watson's Second Request for Production seeks records of all arrests made
by Boyd on August 1, 2012, the day Watson was arrested and charged, to determine if Boyd
"conducted similarly unconstitutional seizures of individuals in [his] patrol of Forestwood Park
on the day of Plaintiffs arrest." (ECF No. 55 at 23). Watson maintains "[t]hese reports could
support Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Boyd's patrol of Forestwood Park consisted of seizing
individuals without reasonable suspicion and then asking them to identify themselves." (Id.)
Watson claims that Boyd's August 2, 2012 arrest reports "could support Plaintiffs claims that
Defendant Boyd falsified police reports in order to justify these seizures." (Id.)

-6-

The Court holds that Watson has failed to identify the relevance of Boyd's arrest record
on August 1, 2012 to the claims in this case. Only Boyd's arrests involving "similar conduct" or
that resulted in an internal affairs investigation of Boyd could be relevant to Watson's claim.
Those documents should have been produced pursuant to other requests. Therefore, the Court
denies Watson's motion to compel Request 12 of Watson's Second Request for Production
because it is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence.
E. Request for Inspection
Watson requested to review the "court files" for thirty-nine individuals, as well as an
unknown number of individuals who entered guilty pleas on August 26, 2013. Watson asserts
"inspection of court files is necessary and vital to Mr. Watson's ability to prove his claims
because many aspects of Mr. Watson's prosecution seem hard to believe: that a plea was entered
on all of his cases without a single documents stating this from either Mr. Watson, his attorney,
or the City Prosecutor; that the City's own files seem to show that several of the case, including
two of the most serious ones, were still open well after Mr. Watson's alleged guilty plea in
August 2013; and that a plea was somehow entered into the Ferguson Court reporting system in
January 2015, around the time that Ferguson's City Prosecutor told Mr. Watson's attorney that
the cases had been closed for months." (ECF No. 55 at 25). Watson claims he needs to inspect
these documents to determine how many of the pleas were entered without a signature of a
defendant or a counsel. (ECF No. 55 at 27). Additionally, Watson avers these court files could
reveal "additional falsified police reports." (ECF No. 55 at 27).
The Court denies Watson's request to inspect these court files. The only relevant court
file is that for Watson. Watson's Monell claim is not based upon policies or customs of the
Ferguson Municipal Court. Rather, Watson's claims are based upon the alleged policies and

-7-

customs of the City as to law enforcement practices. See ECF No. 35,

~~131-148).

The Court

denies the request for inspection of Ferguson Municipal Court files because they are beyond the
scope of the First Amended Complaint and, therefore, irrelevant to this action.

III.

Motion for Protective Order or, In the Alternative, Motion to Compel

Watson claims that counsel for the City of Ferguson, Ron Norwood, gave Watson's
counsel permission to search a database from the Fant case. Watson's counsel had access to the
Fant database because they also serve as the plaintiffs counsel in Fant.

Watson's counsel

provided a list of proposed search terms to counsel for the City of Ferguson on October 6, 2018.
(ECF No. 57-2). On October 11, 2018, counsel for the City of Ferguson gave Watson's counsel
permission to search the Fant database. (ECF Nos. 57-3, 57-4, and 57-5). Counsel for the City
of Ferguson did not object to the search, despite several emails demonstrating Watson's counsel
was searching the Fant database. (ECF Nos. 57-6 and 57-7). On October 30, 2018, counsel for
the City of Ferguson, Jacqueline Graves, emailed Watson's counsel and indicated that the City of
Ferguson would agree to allow Watson's counsel to search the Fant database and then compare
those searches with searches conducted by the City of Ferguson during the same period. (ECF
No. 57-8 at 3). 3

The City of Ferguson reserved its right to object to production of said

documents, including if such production would be unduly burdensome based upon the number of
hits due to search terms. (Id.).
In response, City of Ferguson argues that Watson's counsel engaged in "improper mining
of documents" from the Fant database. (ECF No. 68 at 1). Watson notes that the documents and
information produced by the City of Ferguson in the Fant case are subject to Protective Orders
entered by the District Court Judge in that case. (Id.) Counsel for the City of Ferguson claims
3

Apparently, the City of Ferguson had experienced data loss and the parties could not be certain
that its document production was complete.
-8-

that the parties discussed Watson's counsel performing certain preliminary searches of the Fant
database, but that they never agreed to any use of the documents from the Fant database, nor
could they have because of the protective order in the Fant litigation.
It appears that the parties came to an inarticulate agreement, or a "proposal" as

characterized by the City of Ferguson, that allowed Watson's counsel virtually unfettered access
to search for documents from the Fant litigation. The only dispute now is what to do with the
results of those searches. See ECF No. 68 at 10 ("The City made clear every step of the way that
it was reserving its rights to object to the use of any such documents and information."). The
Court holds that the City of Ferguson must produce documents from the Fant database that are
responsive to the relevant document requests in this case, as previously outlined in this Order. 4
The Court emphasizes that production of any documents pursuant to this Order does not mean
that such documents will be admissible in this litigation. At this stage of the litigation, the parties
shall produce documents that may be relevant in this action and reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence, as previously discussed in this Order.
IV.

Motion to Bifurcate Claims and to Stay Discovery and Trial

City of Ferguson, Missouri filed a Motion to Bifurcate Claims and to Stay Discovery and
Trial, and Boyd joined in this Motion. Defendants seek to bifurcate the constitutional claims
against Boyd from the Monell claim against the City of Ferguson and stay the action against the
City of Ferguson until resolution of Watson's claims against Boyd.

Defendants argue

"[b]ifurcation is appropriate because it serves to further the interests of judicial economy,

4

To the extent that it is required, the parties must also work with the District Court Judge in the
Fant case to supplement or amend the protective order in that case to allow the parties to utilize
the Fant database in this case.
-9-

decreases the changes of confusion or prejudice against any of the parties, and will have no
effect on Plaintiffs rights to recovery." (ECF No. 66 at 4).
Watson filed this Complaint on July 31, 2017. (ECF No. 1). City of Ferguson did not
move to bifurcate the claims until January 11, 2019. (ECF No. 65).

Due to the extensive

discovery that has already occurred in this case, the Court holds that the interests of judicial
economy will not be served by bifurcation of Watson's claims against City of Ferguson and
Boyd. Therefore, the Court denies the Motion to Bifurcate.

V.

Motion to Quash Subpoena

On January 14, 2019, City of Ferguson served a subpoena to produce records upon
ArchCity Defenders, counsel for Watson.

The subpoena asked for production of all non-

privileged documents between ArchCity Defenders and any party or third-party regarding
Watson, the prosecution of Watson by the City of Ferguson based on his 2012 arrest and
subsequent charges, and/or the claims at issue in this case. (ECF No. 82 at 1-2). Watson's
counsel argued that a subpoena was an inappropriate means to obtain this information and
instead supplemented Watson's production in response to document request number 1.
Document request number 1 asked for the production of any statements or affidavits from any
person relating to the occurrences described in the Complaint or otherwise concerning any of
Watson's claims. (ECF No. 82 at 2).
In response, the City of Ferguson argues that its subpoena should not be quashed because
Watson has not adequately responded to the discovery requests.

In addition, the City of

Ferguson contends it needs to subpoena Watson's counsel because "false information" has been
provided to various media outlets. (ECF No. 85).

- 10 -

This motion relates to the interplay between Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 for subpoenas and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34 for production of documents. "[I]n describing the relationship between Rule 34 and
other discovery rules, at least one commentator indicates that '[i]f documents are available from
a party, it has been thought preferable to have them obtained pursuant to Rule 34 rather than
subpoenaing them from a non-party witness [pursuant to Rule 45].'" Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino,
168 F.R.D. 99, 100 (D. Mass. 1996) (quoting 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus: Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2204 (1994)).

The City of Ferguson has not provided an adequate basis for

subpoenaing Watson's counsel, particularly because Watson supplemented his discovery
production after reexamining its files. See Thomas v. !EM, Inc., No. CIV. A. 06-886-B-M2,
2008 WL 695230, at *2 (M.D. La. Mar. 12, 2008) (quoting Burns v. Bank of America, 2007 WL
1589437 (S.D.N.Y.2007) ("Rule 45 subpoenas, although not technically precluded by the
language of Rule 45 from being served upon parties to litigation, are generally used to obtain
documents from non-parties and are 'clearly not meant to provide an end-run around the regular
discovery process under Rules 26 and 34. "'). Likewise, the parties' dispute over the correct
narrative in this action does not form a basis for subpoenaing a party's counsel. Therefore, the
Court grants Watson's Motion to Quash Subpoena.
VI.

Motion to Compel Previously Taken Depositions

Watson requests from Boyd the production of depositions of the Ferguson Chief of Police
(Moss) and Boyd from a separate action where Boyd is alleging racial discrimination against the
City of Ferguson. See Boyd v. City of Ferguson, 17SL-CC4379 (Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, State of Missouri).

In Boyd v. City of Ferguson, the City of Ferguson raised the

affirmative defense that actions were taken against Boyd based upon legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and not based upon Boyd's race. Watson claims that these depositions

- 11 -

bear on his case against the City of Ferguson because they relate to Ferguson's "supervision,
control and discipline of Boyd." (ECF No. 88 at 2).
In response, Boyd argues that the questions directed to Boyd and Police Chief Moss at
their depositions were relevant to Boyd's employment relationship with the City of Ferguson and
whether race was a factor in any City of Ferguson's adverse employment action against Boyd.
(ECF No. 92 at 3). Boyd maintains that the transcripts are not reasonably calculated to the lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Boyd notes that Watson's counsel did not inquire

regarding the Boyd v. City of Ferguson during Boyd's deposition. Boyd states that his counsel in
this action is not his counsel in Boyd v. City of Ferguson and did not take the depositions of
Boyd or Police Chief Moss. (ECF No. 92 at 3). Boyd argues that the requests are overly broad
and burdensome because they are not limited to the issues in this case. (ECF No. 92 at 4). Even
if Watson's request for the deposition transcript is proper and the materials are discoverable,
Boyd argues that the deposition transcripts cannot be used in this litigation because Boyd v. City
of Ferguson does not involve the same subject matter between the same parties as required by

Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(8). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(8)("A deposition lawfully taken and, if
required, filed in any federal- or state-court action may be used in a later action involving the
same subject matter between the same parties, or their representatives or successors in interest, to
the same extent as if taken in the later action.").
The Court holds that the deposition transcripts from Boyd v. City of Ferguson are not
discoverable. As Watson admits, the transcripts would be relevant in this case only to show
Boyd's qualifications for employment and the City of Ferguson's knowledge regarding any
issues before and during his employment with the City of Ferguson. This information is more
readily available from other sources than the deposition transcript of another case that involves

- 12 -

issues unrelated to this case. Presumably, any information should have been included in Boyd's
personnel file. In addition, Watson's counsel could have inquired about the Boyd v. City of
Ferguson lawsuit during depositions in this case, but they did not. Therefore, the Court holds
that Watson's Motion to Compel is denied because the document requests are overbroad and not
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
VII.

Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Admitted Plaintiff's Request for Admissions
Directed to Defendant City of Ferguson

Watson sent City of Ferguson Request for Admissions relating to the United States
Department of Justice's Report, dated March 4, 2015. In the Request for Admissions, Watson
asked the City of Ferguson to admit or deny the Department of Justice made certain findings.
City of Ferguson has not provided responses to the Requests for Admissions. Watson asks the
Court to deem his Requests for Admissions directed to the City of Ferguson to be admitted.
(ECF No. 89).
In response, City of Ferguson argues that it cannot be required to admit legal conclusions.
In addition, City of Ferguson contends it cannot be required to admit statements that contain
hearsay within hearsay.
The Court holds that City of Ferguson should respond to Watson's requests for
Admissions because they ask for admissions of certain findings, not for the legal conclusions that
are outlined in the report. See Moore v. City of Ferguson, Missouri, WL 3141244, at *2 (E.D.
Mo. June 6, 2016) ("The Court holds that the Requests involve permissible inquiries regarding
application of law to facts."). As in Moore, the Court finds that Defendants' concerns regarding
some of the findings in the Report are premature because "[m]atters regarding admissibility of
the Report and its findings will be addressed as part of other pretrial matters." Moore v. City of
Ferguson, Missouri, No. 4:14-CV-1443 SNLJ, 2016 WL 3141244, at *3 (E.D. Mo. June 6,

- 13 -

2016).

Further, the Court finds that Defendant's hearsay arguments are not well-founded

because many of the findings would be fit into a hearsay exception, such as Fed. R. Evid.
80l(d)(2) and Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(B). City of Ferguson is ordered to respond to the Requests
for Admissions within ten (10) days.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Fred Watson's Motion to Compel (ECF No.

54) is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part as outlined above.

Defendants shall

supplement their responses within ten (10) days.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Fred Watson's Motion for Protective Order

or, In the Alternative, Motion to Compel (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in
part, as outlined above. Defendants shall supplement their responses within ten (10) days.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant City of Ferguson, Missouri's Motion to

Bifurcate Claims and to Stay Discovery and Trial (ECF No. 65) and Defendant Eddie Boyd's
Motion to Join In and Adopt Defendant City of Ferguson's Motion to Bifurcate Claims and to
Stay Discovery and Trial (ECF No. 71) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 81)

is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery of

Previously Taken Depositions (ECF No. 87) is DENIED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Deem Admitted Plaintiffs

Request for Admissions Directed to Defendant City of Ferguson (ECF No. 89) is GRANTED, in
part. Defendant City of Ferguson is ordered to respond to the Requests for Admissions within
ten (10) days.

- 14 -

~~

Dated this 5..fA.aay of April, 2019.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

- 15 -