Watterson et al v. Burgess et al
Filing
241
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 137 Motion to Dismiss ; granting in part and denying in part 137 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 140 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 140 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 142 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 142 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 144 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 144 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 146 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 146 Motion for Summary Judgment ; gran ting 148 Motion to Dismiss ; denying 159 Motion to Strike ; granting in part and denying in part 167 Motion ; finding as moot 168 Motion for Sanctions; denying 170 Motion to Strike ; denying 178 Motion to Strike ; granting in part a nd denying in part 195 Motion ; denying 197 Motion in Limine; affirming 210 Memorandum and Recommendations.; granting in part and denying in part 212 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 214 Motion in Limine; denying 217 Motion to Continue Docket Call/Trial; denying 219 Motion to Continue Docket Call/Trial. The Court will also Order Green's defense counsel to pay sanctions in the amount of $250.00 to be made playable to Plaintiff Randolph Watterson. She is further ordered to pay $250.00 to a 501(c)(3) charity of her choice.. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 3/2/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:13-cv-00159-FDW-DCK
JEFFERY RANDOLPH WATTERSON and )
RANDOLPH ALEXANDER WATTERSON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WOODY BURGESS, JASON GREEN, )
FRANKIE DELLINGER, JENNIFER HOYLE, )
DAVID HODKINS, BOB AUSTELL, MIKE )
ALLRED, DAVID HODKINS, CITY OF )
CHERRYVILLE,
BEN
BLACKBURN, )
SELECTIVE INS. OF S.C., CHERRYVILLE )
CITY
POLICE
DEPARTMENT
AND )
CHERRYVILLE UTILITIES DEPT.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court following trial in this matter. During the pretrial
conference and at trial, the Court issued oral rulings on many pending motions. This Order serves
to document those oral rulings so that the docket reflects those rulings accordingly.
The Court first turns to the dispositive motions filed prior to trial. As to the Motion to
Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 137) filed by Defendants City of Cherryville, the
Cherryville Police Department, and the Cherryville Utilities Department, this motion is DENIED
IN PART and GRANTED IN PART for the reasons stated in open court. Similarly, as to the
Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Summary Judgment filed the individual Defendants Woody
Burgess, Bob Austell, Mike Allred, David Hodkins, and Ben Blackburn (Docs. Nos. 140, 142,
144, 146, 148), those motions are GRANTED for the reasons stated in open court. As part of that
ruling, the Motions to Strike filed by several Defendants (Docs. Nos. 159, 170) are DENIED. In
1
addition, Plaintiff Randolph Watterson’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 168), is DENIED AS
MOOT because it related to a Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 161) by opposing parties that was
eventually withdrawn (see Doc. No. 191). To the extent any issues remained following the
withdrawal of the related motion, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 168) is DENIED.
Next, the Court turns to Plaintiff Randolph Watterson’s Motion for Extension of Time
(Doc. No. 167), which, to some extent, also sought sanctions against certain defense counsel for
alleged improper contacts with potential witnesses for trial. That motion is GRANTED IN PART
to the extent it sought additional time to file an affidavit, which Plaintiff filed (see Doc. No. 173).
To the extent that motion sought sanctions, it is DENIED. Defendants’ related Motion to Strike
(Doc. No. 178) is DENIED.
As to the evidentiary motions made pre-trial, Plaintiff Randolph Watterson and most
Defendants filed Motions in Limine (Docs. Nos. 195, 212, 214). While the Court deferred ruling
on some portions of those motions in limine until the evidence was sought to be presented during
trial, the Court ultimately GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART the parties’ motions in
limine prior to or throughout the course of trial. Plaintiff Randolph Watterson also filed a “Motion
in Limine for Records of Proceedings,” (Doc. No. 197); however, he did not reassert or orally raise
the issue presented in that motion during any of the pretrial hearings or during trial. Although it
is now moot, the Court notes that the motion fails to state a sufficient basis to warrant the
extraordinary relief sought.
Moreover, Plaintiff Randolph Watterson’s conduct at trial
demonstrated his remarkable ability to follow trial proceedings, recall witness testimony, and
present his case accordingly. Therefore, his Motion for “Records of Proceedings” (Doc. No. 197)
is DENIED.
2
Defendants Allred, Austell, Blackburn, Burgess, and the Cherryville City Defendants filed
two motions to continue (Docs. Nos. 217, 219). For the reasons stated in open court, those motions
are DENIED.
The sole remaining pretrial issue concerns Plaintiff Randolph Watterson’s Motion for
Default Judgment and for Sanctions against Defendant Jason Green (Doc. No. 196). By referral
of this Court, the subject of that motion was litigated before Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler,
who issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 210) (“M&R”). The M&R explains
in detail the numerous prior attempts Plaintiff Randolph Watterson made to obtain discovery from
Green (Docs. Nos. 150, 157, 181, 185, 196) and the resulting multiple orders previously issued by
the Court directing Defendant Green and his counsel to comply (Doc. No. 154, 175, 190, 203). In
addressing the instant motion, the M&R found convincing evidence to award sanctions and
recommended that, in light of Defendant Green’s repeated failure to comply with Court orders,
“severe sanctions” may be appropriate. (See Doc. No. 210, p. 9).
Neither defense counsel nor Defendant Green objected to any portions of the M&R.
Accordingly, after reviewing the M&R and finding no clear error, the Court accepts the
recommendation and adopts the entire M&R as if fully set forth herein. In order to fashion
appropriate sanctions in accordance with the M&R, the Court inquired of Green and his counsel
during pretrial proceedings as to the reasons for the repeated noncompliance. While defense
counsel acknowledged blame and accepted responsibility for the failures to comply, she offered
little to no justification for essentially ignoring the directives repeatedly provided in the Court’s
orders. In light of the unique facts of this case, including defense counsel’s recurrent violation of
the magistrate judge’s orders pertaining to this discovery dispute, the Court finds that default
3
judgment is not an appropriate sanction, as that sanction punishes Defendant Green more so than
his counsel. Instead, the Court hereby sanctions defense counsel in the amount of $250.00 to be
made payable to Plaintiff Randolph Watterson. While an award of attorney’s fees might be the
more appropriate sanction here if Randolph Watterson had counsel pursuing the instant motion to
compel (and the related motions that preceded it), this is the unusual situation where a party –
because he appears pro se – shall receive payment. In addition, because of the repeated failures to
comply, the Court will also order Green’s defense counsel to pay $250.00 to a charity of her choice.
The charity must be organized as a non-profit under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code. Within sixty days from the date of this Order, defense counsel shall submit a declaration
on the docket indicating compliance with this Order and identifying with specificity the two
$250.00 payments ordered herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 2, 2017
4
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?