Chapman v. City of Rochester et al
Filing
47
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion to Compel. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 09/07/2016. (JKT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RALIEK REDD,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
15-CV-6049
v.
CITY OF ROCHESTER, et al.,
Defendants.
Preliminary Statement
Plaintiff brings this 42 U.S.C.
against
false
the
County
arrest,
unlawful
of
Monroe
failure
to
strip search.
and
§
1983 civil rights action
County
intervene,
employees,
false
imprisonment,
Plaintiff also brings a
alleging that the County has promulgated,
alleging
and
Monell claim,
implemented,
enforced
and/or failed to rectify several policies, practices and customs
of
strip-searching
violations.
#
plaintiff's
charged
with
misdemeanors
or
See Amended Complaint (Docket # 14) . 1
Plaintiff
(Docket
arrestees
filed
37)
based
first
interrogatories.
the
on
set
Counsel
instant
motion
defendants'
of
requests
for
the
to
failure
for
defendants
compel
to
discovery
respond
production
to
and
responded to the
' The action initially was filed against named and unnamed
Rochester Police Officers and the City of Rochester.
See Notice
of Removal (Docket # 1) .
The amended complaint added the
County, Sheriff, and county corrections officers. Judge Larimer
then signed a Stipulation and Order discontinuing the action
against all City defendants on February 8, 2016.
(Docket# 32).
instant
motion,
providing
responses
and/or
40-2).
to
the
(Docket ## 40, 40-
requests for production and interrogatories.
1,
objections
Plaintiff's raised specific arguments by reply brief
(Docket # 41),
and an additional letter.
The Court heard oral
The following Order confirms what
argument on August 19, 2016.
was stated on the record:
1.
related
Interrogatories
to
policies,
##
11-19:
training,
techniques
County
objections
training
and
materials
15
policies
disclosures
related
the
they
have
turned
and
16
ask
related
to
to
strip
that,
over
their
all
such
This motion is therefore granted.
to
Defendant shall have two weeks
supplement
for
indicated
documentation to plaintiff.
documents
procedures
have
notwithstanding,
##
and
Defendants
Jail.
Interrogatories
seeks
intake and/or booking at
conducting strip searches during
Monroe
Plaintiff
for
specific
strip
documents
searches
of
on
minors.
from the date of this Order to
include
any
searches
of
policies
minors
and
training
during
intake
and/or booking at the Monroe County Jail.
2.
Interrogatory # 21:
Plaintiff asks
for
"all documents
setting out policies and procedures of County Defendants and the
MCSO with respect to arrestees under the age of 18 years old."
This request is granted, and defendants shall have two weeks to
supplement their prior submissions.
2
3.
Interrogatories
regarding
MCSO
22-24:
##
internal
Plaintiff
affairs
policies
seeks
and
information
procedures
for
reviewing officer conduct and complaints made against officers.
This
request
is
Plaintiff
denied.
does
not
allege
that
any
internal affairs complaints were filed with the County regarding
the facts of this case, and at this point the Court does not see
how
the
internal
affairs
process
is
relevant
to
plaintiff's
Monell claim.
4.
that
Plaintiff requests
Interrogatory # 27:
set
out
officer,
agent,
the
number
or
of
employee
overtime
of
the
hours
MCSO
"all documents
worked
County
or
by
each
who
was
This request
present at or involved in the incident sued upon."
is denied as plaintiff failed to establish any relevance of such
internal documents.
5.
Interrogatories
plaintiff's
counsel
##
28-32:
explained
to
With
the
these
Court
that
requests,
he
found
references to powerpoint presentations and videos used to train
county employees on when and how to authorize and perform strip
Plaintiff's request is granted,
searches during intake/booking.
and
defendants
have
two
to
weeks
provide
to
training
materials,
including
powerpoint
textbooks,
and
related
strip
videos
to
intake/booking process.
3
plaintiff
all
presentations,
searches
during
the
Interrogatory # 33:
6.
"identify each employee
for
conducting an
June 26,
of
the
who
was
improper
terminated and/or
and/or
unlawful
strip
disciplined
search
from
2002 to the present and give the date and the identity
subject
follows:
of
the
search."
Disciplinary
discoverable in
concern
Plaintiff requests that defendants
(1)
§
the
records
This
of
request
is
defendants
granted
are
as
normally
1983 actions insofar as such prior complaints
truth
or
veracity
of
the
defendant
or
(2)
similar conduct to the type of allegations made in this case namely, unlawful strip searches.
6531,
2012
Chatman v.
at
*5-6
WL
(E.D.
(1)
personal
may
be
Cal.
(AWT),
Cox v.
Consistent
must
at
*3
(W.D.N.Y.
Mar.
28,
Felker, No. CIV S-03-2415 JAM KJM P,
3:03CV0943
2008);
1044505,
See Simcoe v. Gray, No. 10-CV-
Jan.
2008
23,
WL
McClellan,
with past
2009);
2338123,
174
in
2009 WL 173515,
Session v.
Rodriguez,
at
Conn.
F.R.D.
practice
2012) (citing
*2
32,
this
(D.
34
No.
June
4,
(W.D.N.Y.
1997)).
defense
counsel
Court,
speak to his clients to ascertain whether they have any
recollections of
responsive,
and
a
(2)
prior complaint or grievance
review
the
defendants'
that
personnel
files to determine whether any information contained therein is
responsive.
See Venable v.
4120397,
*l
Skelly,
at
No.
(W.D.N.Y.
07-CV-6343,
Morabito,
Sept.
19,
No.
2012) (citing
2012 WL 1029492,
4
10-CV-6624,
at *l
2012 WL
(Edwards
(W.D.N.Y.
v.
Mar.
26,
Responsive
2012))
documents
would
be
those
documents
pertaining to previous allegations or reports of unalwful stripsearches and/or documents reflecting adversely on the truth or
veracity
of
the
defendants.
The
Court
directs
that
defense
counsel shall file an affidavit with the Court confirming that a
good faith investigation has been conducted into relevant prior
reports
and
disclosing
the
results
of
that
investigation.
Defendants shall produce the documents set forth in this Order
within thirty
shall
return
(30)
a
days
from entry of
Plaintiff
this Order.
signed Confidentiality Order
to
defendants
in
advance of receiving any personnel files or other confidential
information.
7.
Document
Plaintiff
Requests:
written or recorded,
that
arrest,
intake
booking
complaints
or
and
were
created as
process,
investigations
requests
or
to
in
all
materials,
the plaintiff's
response
This
thereafter.
to
any
request
is
clearly relevant and within the scope of discoverable materials
and
that
is
therefore
all
such
material
Defense
responses.
affidavit
granted.
with
the
Counsel
was
counsel
for
turned
is
defendants
has
over
in
his
directed
to
file
Court outlining the
steps
stated
discovery
a
sworn
taken to
ensure
that all existing documents have been collected and turned over
to plaintiff.
This affidavit shall be filed with the Court no
5
later
than
thirty
(30)
days
from
the
date
of
this
Order.
Defense counsel stated that video footage of plaintiff's booking
was deleted after thirty days as per Monroe County policy.
course,
defendants
Defendants
are
cannot
directed
provide
to
turn
what
has
over
any
been
Of
deleted.
written
record
retention schedule and policy that exists within two weeks of
this Order.
8.
hearing
identify
alleged
Identification:
that
one
which
conduct
Counsel for plaintiff indicated at the
purpose
of
at
the
of
named
issue
his
discovery
defendants
in
this
was
demands
was
involved
in
the
for
the
Counsel
case.
to
defendant states that the officers do not remember the incident
and that it did not occur, and thus cannot identify which named
defendant
participated
in
the
alleged
strip
search.
To
aid
plaintiff in appropriately litigating this case, defense counsel
is ordered to supply photos of the defendants who were on duty
at Monroe County Jail on November 27,
2013,
to plaintiff within
thirty (30) days of this Order.
SO ORDERED.
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated:
September 7, 2016
Rochester, New York
6
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?