COLE v. ENCAPERA et al

Filing 112

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART re 108 Motion to Compel filed by JASON COLE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 11/16/2016. (ajt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PITTSBURGH
JASON COLE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICK ENCAPERA, TERRY CHILDS,
JUSTIN SHULTZ, CALIFORNIA
BOROUGH, CASEY DURDINES,
WALTER WELDJR.,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:15-CV-00104-CRE

MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2016, after Plaintiff having filed a motion to
compel certain discovery responses from Defendant California Borough [ECF No. 108], and
Defendant California Borough having submitted its response to said motion [ECF No. 109], said
motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
(1) Plaintiff’s Document Request No. 11: Plaintiff’s motion to compel
production of “[a]ny video, photo or audio recording that captures Adam Jeremy
Logan being assaulted by Shultz at the police station” is DENIED, as it is
irrelevant to prove any of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
as Plaintiff’s claims do not involve excessive force allegations. Plaintiff’s only
claim for municipal liability is for his First Amendment retaliation claim, not for
excessive force. The Court also finds that any video, photo or audio recording of
this matter is not material to Plaintiff’s rebuttal as to why the defendant officers
were removed from patrol and terminated.
(2) Plaintiff’s Document Request Nos. 14 and 15: Plaintiff’s motion to
compel production of “[a]ll incident investigation reports from January 1, 2012
through February 20, 2014 which were completed by former California Borough
Police Officers Justin Shultz and Terry Childs” is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. Defendant need only produce incident investigation reports
from January 1, 2012 to February 20, 2014 completed by Officers Shultz and
Childs that involve individuals who complained of or reported police misconduct,
as it is relevant to prove Plaintiff’s claim for municipal liability under Monell for
establishing a Borough custom of retaliating against citizens for exercising their
First Amendment rights. Plaintiff’s remaining request is irrelevant and overbroad.
1

Defendant California Borough shall respond to said request by November 18,
2016 at 12:00 p.m.
(3) Plaintiff’s Document Request Nos. 19, 20, 21: Plaintiff’s motion to
compel production of “[a]ll registration statements, rental licenses and inspection
reports, required by California Borough Code Ordinance 160-3, 160-4, and 16012, from the years 2014 and 2015” is DENIED, as there is no allegation in the
complaint regarding the disparate application of Borough Ordinances and any
such request is irrelevant to prove the claims in this case.
(4) Plaintiff’s Document Request No. 23: Plaintiff’s motion to compel
production of “[a]ny and all police reports or related documents connected to an
incident involving Dana Weld at the Bar on May 30, 2016 and/or June 1, 2016” is
DENIED as it is not relevant to prove any of Plaintiff’s constitutional claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s “harassment” allegations fall under the scope
of his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. There is no
allegation that Dana Weld is a government harasser who deprived Plaintiff of any
liberty or property interest, and any such evidence is ancillary and irrelevant to the
claims in this case. See Rittenhouse Entm't, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 861 F.
Supp. 2d 470, 486 (M.D. Pa. 2012).

So ordered.

BY THE COURT:

s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge

2