O'Donnell et al v. City of Cleveland et al
Filing
48
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/10/15 partially granting plaintiffs' motion to compel only as to the payroll records. (Related Doc. 46 ) (M,G)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
ERIN O’DONNELL, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
-------------------------------------------------------
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-02612
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc.46.]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On August 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Discovery.1/ Plaintiffs state that
Defendants have not provided discovery regarding other officers who used deadly force and were
assigned to the “gym.”On September 8, 2015, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion.2/ For
the below reasons, this Court PARTIALLY GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery
only as to the payroll records.
I. Background
On May 5, 2015, this Court ordered that Defendants produce documents involving other
officers who discharged a firearm, the discipline/change in duty assignments received by the officer
discharging the firearm, and that officer’s race/ethnicity in each incident for the five years preceding
November 29, 2012.3/
After Plaintiffs notified the Court of a discovery dispute, this Court made an order on August
1/
Doc. 46.
Doc. 47.
2/
3/
Doc. 32.
-1-
Case No. 1:14-cv-02612
Gwin, J.
11, 2015. In that order, this Court advised the Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel on the docket if
they believe they are entitled to documents which they have not yet received.4/
On August 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery.4/ In that motion, Plaintiffs
state that they have not received the ordered documents. On September 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a
response.5/
II. Analysis
First, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have failed to provide change in duty documentation
for 35 officers. In their response, Defendants admit that “change in duty assignment information
remains missing for roughly 41 officers.”6/ Defendants explain that these documents cannot be
located “either because Division of Police Record Retention Policies have destroyed the information
or simply because they do not exist.”7/
Second, Plaintiffs say that Defendants have not produced any gym sign in sheet or daily
report.8/ However, in their response, Defendants state that on September 3, 2015, they turned over
Daily Duty Assignment information from the policy gymnasium for the dates between 2008-20129/.
Defendants state that Daily Duty Assignment and Daily Duty Reports are retained for only
three years.10/ Because the City’s document retention plan only keeps documents for three years, the
Daily Duty Reports are not available for the longer time period ordered by the court.
4/
Doc. 45.
4/
Doc. 46.
5/
Doc. 47.
6/
Id..
7/
Id.
8/
Doc. 46.
Doc. 47.
9/
10/
Id.
-2-
Case No. 1:14-cv-02612
Gwin, J.
Further, Defendants state in their response that they will be providing Plaintiffs with Officer
Information Sheets, Officer Personnel Cards, and additional Administrative Duty Memos by the end
of this week.11/
Finally, Plaintiffs state that payroll records would assist them in determining when officers
were assigned to the “gym.” Defendants do not offer any explanation as to why the payroll records
have not been produced.
IV. Conclusion
Based on Defendants’ representation to this Court that documents responsive to this request
either do not exist or have already been produced to Plaintiffs, the motion to compel discovery is
PARTIALLY GRANTED only as to the payroll record .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 10 2015
11/
Id.
-3-
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?