Roberts v. Robertson

Filing 10

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Jury Trial set for 2/16/2016 at 9:00 AM before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Pretrial Conference set for 2/1/2016 at 1:30 PM before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Motions to Amend due by 5/29/2015. Discovery due by 4/10/2015. Dispositive Motions due by 9/11/2015. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 7/7/2014. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
LINDA MAE ROBERTS,
PLAINTIFF
VS.

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-0038
Sharp/Griffin
Jury Demand

MICHAEL ROBERTSON,
DEFENDANT
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

A.

JURISDICTION:

The court has jurisdiction over all civil claims which

arise under the U.S. Constitution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and it has jurisdiction to
redress the deprivation, under color of any state law, of any right secured by the U.S.
Constitution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3). Venue is properly situated in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)
because the claims arise in this district.
B.

BRIEF THEORIES OF THE PARTIES:
(1)

PLAINTIFF:

On April 12, 2013 Tennessee State Trooper Michael Robertson conducted
a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Linda Roberts on Interstate 40 in Putnam County
Tennessee. Ms. Roberts allowed Trooper Robertson to search her vehicle. The trooper
found 90 hydrocodone pills in a prescription bottle with Ms. Roberts’ name on it, and a
cellular telephone belonging to Ms. Roberts.

1

Trooper Robertson immediately seized the hydrocodone pills and, without Ms.
Roberts’ consent, read text messages on the cellular telephone. He accused Ms. Roberts
of selling drugs illegally, told her she was a “worthless mom,” a “drug addict,” and a
“liar.” He arrested her and transported her to the Putnam County jail where he charged
her with a violation of Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-417.
Trooper Robertson called the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services and
reported Ms. Roberts admitted that she sold her medication in the presence of her
children, that she used drugs in the presence of her children, that she had a needle syringe
in her possession, that her arms were covered with needle marks, and that she was
impaired and uncooperative during the traffic stop. As a result of Trooper Robertson’s
statements, the Department of Children’s Services removed Ms. Roberts children from
her custody.
The trooper’s actions constitute a violation of Ms. Roberts’ Fourth Amendment
right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the common-laws torts of outrageous
conduct, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and invasion of privacy.
(2)

DEFENDANT:

On April 12, 2013, Trooper Robertson conducted a proper investigative stop on
plaintiff’s vehicle because she was speeding. When he pulled up to the car that plaintiff
was driving, Trooper Robertson noticed there were four occupants and there was a
considerable amount of activity going on inside the car. As Trooper Robertson came to
the window to ask for license and registration, he noticed that all of the occupants were
very nervous and shaky. Plaintiff gave permission to search the vehicle. Within five
minutes of stopping the vehicle, Trooper Robertson found a small baggie of marijuana, a

2

snorting straw, a hypodermic needle, and other indications of drugs. Trooper Robertson
also found 90 hydrocodone pills prescribed to plaintiff. Trooper Robertson looked at
plaintiff’s cell phone (which she originally denied was hers). The cell phone was located
inside the car that plaintiff had allowed Trooper Robertson to search and was not
password protected. The cellular phone contained messages that indicated that there had
been some drug transactions.
Trooper Robertson asked for and obtained permission to search all of the
occupants. When he was questioned, Mr. Roberts admitted that he had used the needle to
shoot up morphine the night before while the children were in bed. Mr. Roberts also
admitted selling the hydrocodone pills.

Trooper Robertson placed Mr. and Mrs.

Robertson under arrest for selling prescription medication.
Trooper Robertson did call the Department of Children’s Services because the
baby sitter could not watch the children any longer while Mr. and Mrs. Roberts were in
jail. Trooper Robertson did not accuse Ms. Roberts of any of the things that plaintiff
indicates in the Complaint.

Trooper Robertson did not make a false report to the

Department.
Trooper Robertson had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to take the
actions that he did. Trooper Robertson did not violate plaintiff’s rights.

C.

ISSUES RESOLVED: Jurisdiction and venue.

D.

ISSUES STILL IN DISPUTE:

1.

Whether Trooper Robertson violated Linda Roberts’ Fourth Amendment
right against unreasonable search and seizure;
3

2.

Whether Trooper Robertson caused Linda Roberts to suffer a serious
emotional injury;

3.

Whether Trooper Robertson executed an affidavit of complaint against
Ms. Roberts, without probable cause;

4.

Whether Trooper Robertson’s detention of Ms. Roberts constitutes false
imprisonment;

5.

Whether Trooper Robertson’s search of Ms. Roberts’ cellular telephone
was an unreasonable invasion of her privacy; and

6.

Whether Linda Roberts suffered damage as a result of Trooper
Robertson’s actions.

E.

INITIAL DISCLOSURES: The parties shall exchange initial disclosures

pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1) on or before Friday, July 18, 2014.
F.

MEETING OF COUNSEL AND THE PARTIES TO DISCUSS

SETTLEMENT PROSPECTS:

Ninety (90) days from the date of the initial case

management conference, counsel and clients are required to have a face-to-face meeting
to discuss whether this can be resolved without further discovery proceedings. If a party,
other than a natural person, is involved in this litigation, a representative who has the
authority to settle shall attend this meeting on behalf of that party. After the meeting is
conducted, counsel shall prepare a report and file it with the court reflecting that the
parties met and the parties made a good faith effort to evaluate the resolution of this case.
This report should include whether the parties believe that one of the Alternative Dispute

4

Resolution (“ADR”) procedures under the Local Rules would further assist the parties in
resolving this matter.
G.

DISCOVERY:

The parties shall complete all written discovery Friday

April 10, 2015, and depose all fact witnesses on or before Friday, May 22, 2015.
Discovery is not stayed during dispositive motions, unless ordered by the court. No
motions concerning discovery are to be filed until after the parties have conferred in good
faith and, unable to resolve their differences, have scheduled and participated in a
conference telephone call with Judge Sharp.
H.

MOTIONS TO AMEND: The parties shall file all motions to amend on

or before Friday, May 29, 2015.
I.

DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS:

The Plaintiff shall identify and disclose

all expert witnesses, if any, and expert reports on or before Friday, June 12, 2015. The
Defendant shall identify and disclose all expert witnesses, if any, and expert reports on or
before Friday, June 26, 2015.
J.

DEPOSITIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES: The parties shall depose all

expert witnesses on or before Friday, August 7, 2015.
K.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS: The parties shall file all dispositive motions

on or before Friday, September 11, 2015. Responses to dispositive motions shall be
filed within thirty (30) days after the filing of the motion. Optional replies may be filed
within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the response. Briefs shall not exceed twentyfive (25) pages.
L.

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY:

discovery will be necessary in this lawsuit.

5

The parties do not believe electronic

M.

ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME:

The parties expect the trial to last

approximately two (2) days.

It is so ORDERED.
______________________________
United States

6

Judge