Sours v. Karr et al

Filing 73

ORDER granting in part 64 Plaintiff's motion to compel. Signed on 9/20/17 by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Strodtman, Tracy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM SCOTT SOURS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHAD KARR, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:15-cv-05075-DGK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL
This matter arises out of a May 19, 2014, traffic stop and the subsequent search of
Plaintiff’s vehicle by Defendants, who are police officers and detectives. Pending before the
Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 64). Defendants object to Plaintiff’s Requests for
Production 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and Requests for Interrogatories 1(a)-(d), 2, and 6. The Court rules on
these as follows:
I.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Requests for Production 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, and
10 is granted in part.
Requests 1 and 8 involve electronically-stored documents. Request 1 seeks “[a]ny and all

documents from any electronic storage media computer used by or accessible to the following
individuals, and contain reference to the Plaintiff: Chad Karr, Darren McIntosh, Tommy Kitch,
Jeremy Bland. The scope of this request is January 1, 2014, to present, or whatever period of time
the electronic storage media will allow.” (Doc. 58-1 at 3). Request 8 seeks “[a]ny and all
documents from electronic storage media used by or accessible to [Defendants], which contain any
of the following search terms: stolen property, search drugs, warrants, stop, 1212 Rex. The scope
of this request is limited to January 1, 2014 to present, or to that period which the electronic storage
media will allow.” (Doc. 58-1 at 6).

Defendants object to these requests as overbroad. The Court agrees. Defendants assert
they have provided all emails related to either Plaintiff or the May 19, 2014, traffic stop, see RFP 2,
7 (Doc. 58-1 at 4); Pl.’s Br. in Opp. at 1 ¶ 3 (Doc. 66), and much of the information returned in the
requested search would be unrelated to Plaintiff’s case.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel this

discovery is denied.
Requests 5, 9, and 10 seek Defendants’ employment records, including any complaints of
misconduct.

Defendants object to these requests because they are overbroad and seek

confidential employment information. Given the personal and sensitive nature of personnel files,
the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel this discovery.
Finally, Request 6 seeks documents “provided to or circulated amongst police agencies for
their preparation, use or reference during the stop, arrest and imprisonment of Plaintiff on May 19,
2014.

This would include, but not be limited to, minutes of meetings, agendas, reports,

accoutings, spreadsheets, powerpoint slides, or other documents.” (Doc. 58-1 at 5).
Defendants object to this request, but do not explain their objection in their briefing.
Because this information is potentially relevant, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request in part.
Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with any written department policies in effect on May 19, 2014,
including manuals and handouts distributed at policy-related meetings that took place between
March 19, 2014, and July 19, 2014.
II.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Interrogatories 1(a)-(d), 2, and 6 is
denied.
Next, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants to provide responses to Interrogatories

1(a)-(d), 2, and 6. Defendants object to these requests because they are overbroad and seek
confidential information.
2

Interrogatories 1(a)-(d) seek Defendant Jeremy Bland’s personal information, including
his social security number, the names and birthdates of his family, his address, and his schooling
(Doc. 64-1 at 6-7). Interrogatory 2 seeks Defendant Bland’s employment records (Id. at 8-9).
Interrogatory 6 seeks the “URL of any website(s) owned, maintained, established by, or in any
way related to [Defendant Bland].” (Id. at 11).
These interrogatories seek information that is either confidential or irrelevant. Plaintiff’s
motion to compel Defendant Bland to provide this information is denied.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 64) is GRANTED IN PART. In response to Request
for Production 6, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with any written department policies in effect
on May 19, 2014, including manuals and handouts distributed at meetings related to department
policy between March 19, 2014, and July 19, 2014. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s motion is
denied. Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing (Doc. 57) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 20, 2017

/s/Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3