Winn v. City of Tulsa, The et al
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 15 Motion for Sanctions (tjc, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTINA WINN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.14-CV-497-CVE-FHM
THE CITY OF TULSA and JIM BRILL,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant City of Tulsa, [Dkt. 15] is before
the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for decision. The matter has been fully
briefed and is ripe for decision. [Dkt. 15, 17, 22].
Before this action was removed from state court, Plaintiff served discovery requests
on the City of Tulsa (City). The City failed to serve timely responses and Plaintiff filed a
motion to compel in the state court. An order compelling discovery responses was entered.
Plaintiff subsequently agreed to a number of extensions of time for the City to respond.
The City has responded to the discovery requests, but Plaintiff asserts that the responses
have not sufficiently answered the discovery requests. Plaintiff now seeks an order
sanctioning the City in any one or a combination of the following ways: 1) denying
Defendant the opportunity to present any statutory or affirmative defense; 2) imposing
Plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees on Defendant, regardless of the outcome at trial; 3)
submitting an adverse instruction to the jury that Defendant deliberately suppressed
relevant information about use of force complaints, and the information was likely adverse
to their defense; 4) an order precluding Defendant from introducing any character or
conviction evidence against the Plaintiff. [Dkt. 15, p. 10]. The City asserts that it has
complied with the discovery requests and asserts that Plaintiff has enlarged the discovery
requests by way of issuing deficiency letters whereby she requested additional information
not included in the original discovery request. Plaintiff replies that in other cases her
counsel has prosecuted against the City, the information she now requests has been
provided on the basis of the same or similar requests and asserts that the “City has clearly
withheld relevant requested information and should be sanctioned for failing to comply with
the Tulsa County District Court’s Order.” [Dkt. 22, p. 3].
The court notes that Plaintiff has not asked that the dispute over the scope and
meaning of the discovery request be resolved, but only that sanctions be imposed against
the City. It is not apparent from the parties’ papers that Plaintiff has not received all the
materials responsive to her specific discovery requests.
Thus, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that sanctions against the City are appropriate.
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions Against Defendant City of Tulsa, [Dkt. 15] is DENIED.
If the parties have not resolved the dispute over what should be produced in
response to the discovery requests, after a face-to-face meet and confer is conducted in
a sincere effort to resolve and narrow the area of dispute,1 a motion to compel specifically
addressing the outstanding discovery should be filed and, upon request, may be addressed
on an expedited basis.
SO ORDERED this 10th day of November, 2014.
1
S e e,
L C v R 3 6 . 1 , r e q u iri n g p e r s o n a l c o n f e r e n c e t o a tt e m p t t o r e s o l v e d i s c o v e r y d i s p u t e s .
2
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?