Mendoza v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al
ORDER- The defendants' 145 Motion to Reconsider and/or Modify Second Amended Progression Order is denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (MKR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JUSTIN OSTERBERG, individually;
JOHN DOES # 1-5, individually;
SARPY COUNTY, NEBRASKA;
SHERIFF JEFF DAVIS; and
JOHN DOES # 6-10,
This matter is before the court on the defendants’, Sarpy County (County) and
Sheriff Jeff Davis (Davis), Motion to Reconsider and/or Modify Second Amended
Progression Order (Filing No. 145). The defendants filed a brief (Filing No. 147) and
index of evidence (Filing No. 146) in support of the motion. On January 30, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a motion to extend certain pretrial deadlines by sixty days. See Filing No.
143. The court granted the motion February 2, 2015, before the defendants filed an
opposition. See Filing No. 144. The defendants state they agree with the extended
deadlines for the reason the plaintiff has not yet received his “A-file” and are willing to
agree to certain discovery, such as Davis’ deposition and/or a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
See Filing No. 147 - Brief p. 1-2.
However, the defendants argue there is no
“justification for unlimited discovery to continue against them within the scope of
qualified immunity” and “request [the court to] impose certain limitations on the scope of
further discovery requests . . . within the scope of Davis’s qualified immunity assertion.”
Id. at 2. The defendants argue the plaintiff’s conduct in advancing discovery has been
dilatory and reasonable limitations on discovery are warranted.
Id. at 2-14.
defendants propose the following limitations on additional discovery:
1) Deposition of Justin Osterberg (Osterberg);
2) Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the County or, alternatively,
the deposition of Greg London, the Captain of the Jail in the
relevant time period;
3) Deposition of Davis;
4) Any discovery made necessary by any newly discovered
evidence within the contents of Plaintiff’s A-file upon receipt
of the same; and
5) Any other discovery agreed to by the parties or sought by
advance motion with specific description of how it is relevant
to Davis or Osterberg’s qualified immunity assertions and an
explanation as to why it could not have been sooner sought
with due diligence.
As the plaintiff represented, “no party has yet seen the A-file, [thus] it is
unreasonable and unduly prejudicial to insist that any party’s further discovery should
be further restricted.”
See Filing No. 143.
The court understands the defendants’
frustration in the plaintiff’s inability to specifically identify future discovery requests;
however, the court also understands the plaintiff’s inability to identify further discovery
without first reviewing the A-file. After carefully reviewing the defendants’ motion, the
court finds the defendants’ proposed limitations are synonymous with the current
limitations on discovery. Essentially, as stated in the defendants’ third limitation, any
additional discovery, beyond that which has been offered or agreed upon, is limited to
“discovery made necessary by any newly discovered evidence within the contents of
Plaintiff’s A-file” and to the issue of qualified immunity as ordered in the court’s
September 4, 2014, initial progression order. See Filing No. 103 - Order. Any concern
the defendants have with adding new parties is assuaged by the fact that deadline has
passed and the plaintiff has not sought an extension of that deadline. Nevertheless, the
court will caution the plaintiff to avoid subjecting the defendants to any broad reaching
discovery or discovery unnecessary to resolve the qualified immunity issue.
IT IS ORDERED:
The defendants’ Motion to Reconsider and/or Modify Second Amended
Progression Order (Filing No. 145) is denied.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?