Doe v. Josephine County

Filing 295

ORDER: The Court declines to exercise its discretion to impose discovery sanctions in this case. Please access entire text by document number hyperlink. Signed on 03/24/2015 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke.Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-02080-CL, 1:13-cv-00724-CL, 1:13-cv-00825-CL (rsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION

JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE 2, and JOHN DOE 3;

Plaintiffs;

Case No. 1: 12-cv-02080-CL
Consolidated with:
1: 13-cv-00825-CL
1: 13-cv-00724-CL

V..

JOSEPHINE COUNTY;
Defendant.

JOHN DOE 5, JOl-IN DOE 6, and JOl-IN
DOE 7;
Plaintiffs;
V.

JOSEPHINE COUNTY;
Defendant.

III
III
III

Page I - Order

ORDER

JACK DOE, JACK DOE 3, and JACK
DOE4;
Plaintiffs;
V.

JOSEPHINE COUNTY;
Defendant.

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge.
On July 31,2014, Plaintiffsfiled a Motion to Compel (#124) Defendant's compliance
with Plaintiffs' discovery requests. In conjunction with their Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs sought
sanctions against Defendant and Defendant's counsel. The record before the Court was not clear
as to whether any responsive records were in existence and whether Defendant had diligently
searched for them. Consequently, the Court ordered (#157) supplemental briefing and ultimately
held an evidentiary hearing (#270). Based on the hearing testimony, the Court was satisfied that
Defendant's employees had produced all non-privileged records in existence. Accordingly, on
December 10, 2014, the Court denied (#276) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. However, the Court
reserved the issue of sanctions for consideration along with the parties' pending motions for
summary judgment.
As the Court indicated in its order of December 10, 2014, this case presented discovery
challenges given that many of the records sought are over 25 years old. The Court continues to
be troubled by the course of discovery in this case. The Court and counsel probably could have
~etter

communicated and otherwise managed discovery to more efficiently and cost-effectively

completed discovery. However, the Court ultimately found that Defendant's employees made a
sincere and good faith effort to produce all responsive documents still in Defendant's custody

Page 2 -Order

and control, and denied the Motion to Compel. The Court understands the frustration of
Plaintiffs' counsel throughout discovery but, other than some added cost and time, does not find
significant prejudice to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs presented an extensive summary judgment factual
record developed through discovery.
Plaintiffs raised an issue of alleged spoliation of evidence by Defendant related to the
employee file of Ray Luckey and juvenile probation files. The Court does not believe this issue
was fully briefed or developed at summary judgment and is better left as a pretrial issue for the
trial judge.
The Court declines to exercise its discretion to impose discovery sanctions in this case.
The Court is confident that the very experienced and capable counsel in this case will continue to
be strong advocates for their clients while being professional toward each other and the Court.

MARK D. CLARKE
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 - Order