SCUTELLA v. CITY OF ERIE BUREAU OF POLICE et al

Filing 123

ORDER denying 111 Motion to Compel Production of Defendant's Responses to Requests for Production. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 6/8/15. (bfm)

•·

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

)
)
)
)

JHEN SCUTELLA
Plaintiff,

v.
CITY OF ERIE BUREAU OF POLICE, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 1:11-cv-00198
Judge Maurice B. Cohill

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff, Jhen Scutella ("Mr. Scutella"), filed a Motion to Compel
Production of Defendant's Responses to Requests for Production [ECF No. 111]. By this
motion, Plaintiff is asking this Court to compel Defendant James Cousin II to: "Produce all
internal investigations, internal affairs inspector reports, summaries and files related to
Your suspension for Your behavior displayed on the YouTube video in 2009, including but
not limited to, the related report of internal-affairs inspector, James De Dionisio."
Specifically, the sought after document is the internal affairs investigation report of the You
Tube video of Officer Cousins ("the Report"). The basis for Plaintiffs motion is that the
report will lead to discoverable evidence under the liberal purview of Federal Rule of
Evidence 26(b)(1). Plaintiffs Brief, p. 5. Defendants filed a Response to the Motion to
Compel in which they argued, inter alia, that: (1) the Report is not discoverable because its
production would not lead to the discovery of relevant evidence for trial; and (2) the
information contained in the Report is protected from disclosure because it is privileged.
Defendants' Response, pp. 5-8. Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendants' Response arguing (1)

Scutella Motion to Compel, Draft
that the standard for discoverability of evidence is not whether it would be admissible at
trial, but whether it is relevant as defined by Federal Rule of Evidence 401; (2) that the
report is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, such as evidence of
Defendant Cousin's plan, intent, habit or impeachment evidence; and (3) that only the City
of Erie, and not Officer Cousins, may properly invoke privilege regarding the report.
Plaintiffs Reply, pp 2-7.
On April15, 2015, the Court ordered a Status Conference to discuss the pre-trial
schedule of this matter, which then was set to go to trial on May 4, 2015. At the Status
Conference, the pending Motion to Compel was discussed and the Court requested that it
be given the Report for an in camera review. Defendants also asked that if the Court
determined that the document was discoverable, the report be released subject to a
protective order.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) states, "Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any non privileged matter that is relevant to a party's claim or defense ....
Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. Accordingly, the
Report can be discoverable even if not admissible at trial.
We have thoroughly reviewed the Report and find that the Report does not contain
any matter that is relevant to Plaintiffs claims, Defendant Cousins' truthfulness, or
otherwise. Therefore, the Report is not discoverable and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
Production of Defendant's Responses to Requests for Production shall be denied:

2

Scutella Motion to Compel, Draft
AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Defendant's Responses to
Requests for Production is DENIED.

"Ufa_.~eu ~

l t!o '8i:RJ W-

Maurice B. Cohill Jr.
Senior United States District Court Judge

3