Bell v. Kansas City Police Department et al

Filing 203

ORDER FINDING NO DISCOVERY VIOLATION. Signed on 6/4/12 by District Judge Greg Kays. (Francis, Alexandra) Modified on 6/4/2012 - mailed to plaintiff (Francis, Alexandra).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
ERIC E. BELL, Sr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OFFICER AARON L. BRYANT, and
OFFICER DAIN T. APPLE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 08-0456-CV-W-DGK

ORDER FINDING NO DISCOVERY VIOLATION
This § 1983 action arises out of Plaintiff pro se Eric Bell’s arrest following a high-speed
chase on June 24, 2007. Bell alleges that at the conclusion of the chase, the Defendants, officers
with the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department (“KCPD”), violated his constitutional rights
by unlawfully tasering him.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants have violated the Court’s
discovery order dated June 30, 2009. The history of this dispute is as follows. After the Court
granted Defendants summary judgment, Plaintiff appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. As part of his appeal, Plaintiff argued the district court erred by failing to hold
Defendants in contempt for discovery violations. The Court of Appeals partially reversed the
award of summary judgment and instructed the district court on remand “to address whether
defendants violated discovery orders by failing to produce certain videotapes, and to craft a
remedy if appropriate.”
This Court1 subsequently ordered the parties to brief whether Defendants had complied
with a June 30, 2009 order directing them to produce to Plaintiff videotape made from a patrol
1

This case was previously assigned to the Honorable Howard F. Sachs, Senior District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

car dash camera. The Court also ordered the parties to indicate whether there were any other
outstanding discovery disputes between the parties.
In their response (doc. 194), Defendants stated that on July 13, 2009, they hand-delivered
three videotapes to Plaintiff, and that these were the only videotapes they possessed. Thus, they
maintain, they complied with the Court’s June 30, 2009 order.
In his response (doc. 198), Plaintiff conceded that Defendants had provided these three
videotapes to him, but complained that two other videotapes, numbers 6410 and 41502, were not
produced. These tapes were referenced in a report made by Officer Eric Stucker in which he
requested the tapes be held and saved as part of the case investigation file.
To clarify the record, the Court subsequently ordered Defendants to file a brief stating
whether videotapes numbered 6410 and 41502 had been produced to Plaintiff, and if not,
explaining why Defendants failed to produce these tapes.
On March 9, 2012, Defendants filed their response (doc. 202). In it, they reported that
videotapes 6410 and 41502 were released and destroyed on June 27, 2008, one year and one day
after Plaintiff’s arrest, as per KCPD videotape retention policy. Defendants state these videos
were not held any longer because no letter or other notification had been sent to KCPD asking
them to continue holding these videos, and they had not yet received notice of this lawsuit.
Plaintiff has not filed any reply to Defendants’ response, and his time to reply has expired.
The Court finds Defendants’ response to be credible and holds Defendants did not violate
the Court’s June 30, 2009 discovery order.
DATE: June 4, 2012

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

2