Crabbs v. Scott et al
Filing
101
OPINION AND ORDER denying 98 Second Motion for Order to Set Status Conference and Order Reopening Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 8/11/2014.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KEITH CRABBS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Civil Action 2:12-cv-1126
Judge Watson
Magistrate Judge King
SHERIFF ZACH SCOTT, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a civil rights action in which plaintiff alleges that,
after his acquittal on a criminal charge, he was unlawfully detained
and his DNA was forcibly collected and recorded in state and national
databases in contravention of his rights under the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments.1 Named as defendants are officials of the Franklin County
Sheriff’s Department (“the County Defendants”), the Ohio Attorney
General and the Superintendent of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal
Investigation and Identification.
The case was initiated with the filing of the Complaint, ECF 1,
on December 6, 2012. On April 3, 2013, the Court established a
discovery completion date of December 1, 2013.
Preliminary Pretrial
Order, ECF 30, PageID# 179. Motions for summary judgment, ECF 68, 79,
89, are fully briefed and awaiting resolution. This matter is now
before the Court on plaintiff’s Second Motion for Order to Set Status
1
Plaintiff no longer pursues a First Amendment retaliation claim. Memorandum
of Plaintiff in Opposition to Defendants Zach Scott, Mark Barrett and Gregory
Goodrich’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 91, PageID# 920.
1
Conference and Order Reopening Discovery, ECF 98 (“Motion to Reopen
Discovery”).
The County defendants oppose the motion.
Response in
Opposition, ECF 99.
Plaintiff asks to reopen discovery to permit inquiry into two
areas: (1) the “operation and coordination of [the Automatic License
Plate Reader] data regarding license plate information on vehicles
owned by Plaintiff and his family between Defendants’ office and the
law enforcement agencies involved in the stops” and (2) the “exchange
of information between Defendant’s office and the law enforcement
agencies regarding Mr. Crabb’s identity and the identification of
vehicles he is known to drive.”
Motion to Reopen Discovery, PageID#
972. Plaintiff asserts that he has been the subject of “intimidation
and retaliation . . . because he has prosecuted this suit.”
PageID# 966.
Id., at
He contends that the requested discovery will permit him
“to establish a party-opponent admission, pursuant to Evid. R.
801(d)(2), that [County] Defendants Scott and Barrett acted
unconstitutionally in detaining Plaintiff and seizing his DNA.”
at PageID# 967.
Id.
In support of the request, plaintiff lists a number
of traffic stops, by a number of law enforcement officials, between
March 6, 2013 and August 30, 2013.
Id. at PageID# 969-71.
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the
modification of a scheduling order “only for good cause and with the
judge’s consent.”
Rule 16(b)(4).
A court considering a request to
modify the schedule may do so only “‘if it cannot reasonably be met
despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’”
Leary v.
Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906 (6th Cir. 2003)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
16, 1983 Advisory Committee Notes).
“Another important consideration
for a district court deciding whether Rule 16's ‘good cause’ standard
is met is whether the opposing party will suffer prejudice by virtue
of the amendment.”
Id. (citing Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613,
625 (6th Cir. 2002)). The “overarching inquiry,” however, “is whether
the moving party was diligent in pursuing discovery.”
Dowling v.
Cleveland Clinic Found., 593 F. 3d 472, 478 (6th Cir. 2010).
The alleged incidents of claimed intimidation and retaliation
occurred substantially before the discovery completion date in this
case, yet plaintiff does not explain why the discovery now sought in
connection with these incidents was not undertaken during the
discovery period.
Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish that he
was diligent in pursuing the requested discovery.
It follows that
plaintiff has not established good cause for modifying the pretrial
schedule in this case.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s Second Motion for Order to Set Status
Conference and Order Reopening Discovery, ECF 98, is DENIED.
August 11, 2014
s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
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?