Holland v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County et al

Filing 14

ORDER: Motion to Amend Pleadings due by 2/25/2014. Discovery due by 7/31/2014. Dispositive Motions due by 12/8/2014. Jury Trial set for 4/28/2015 at 9:00 AM before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Pretrial Conference set for 4/13/2015 at 1:30 PM before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Telephone Conference set for 6/25/2014 10:00 AM to be initiate by counsel for plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 1/13/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) Modified Text on 1/14/2014 (dt).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
NATASHA HOLLAND,
Plaintiff,
vs.

NO. 13-01198

METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF,
NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY;
METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE POLICE DEPT.;
STEVE ANDERSON, METRO POLICE CHIEF; and
PHILLIP SHULER, in his official and,
individual capacities.

JURY DEMANDED
JUDGE SHARP
MAG. JUDGE BRYANT

__________
PROPOSED INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. JURISDICTION
1.

The Court has jurisdiction of this case due to a Federal question in that the

Plaintiff have sued under 42 USC §1983 and 1988. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S. C. §§
1331 and 1343, and is not disputed. State law claims are based upon supplemental jurisdiction as
the actions that give rise to the suit are based upon the same alleged set of facts and
circumstances.
B. THEORY OF PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff’s Theory: The Plaintiff, Natasha Holland, suffered damages as a result

of the unlawful and unconstitutional acts of the Defendant Phillip Shuler, during a traffic stop on
or about January 11, 2012. Plaintiff was injured when Defendant Shuler battered her, using
unreasonable and excessive force during said traffic stop in violation of the Plaintiff’s Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment Rights. Plaintiff asserts that the aforesaid violations were the direct and
proximate result of Defendant Metropolitan Government of Davidson County, Metro Police
Chief Steve Anderson, and Metropolitan Nashville Police Departments’ improper policies and

1

decisionmaking, including failure to properly train, supervise and discipline its police officers,
specifically with respect to Defendant Phillip Shuler.
2.

Defendants’ Theory of the Case:
a. Defendant Metropolitan Government:
No custom, policy, or practice of the Metropolitan Government resulted in any

deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or federal rights. Additionally, any alleged injury to
Plaintiff did not result from the Metropolitan Government’s failure to train, supervise, discipline,
adequately hire, or oversee any of its employees. No conduct alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint
rises to the level of a constitutional violation.
b. Defendant Metropolitan Nashville Police Chief Steve Anderson:
No action on the part of Chief Anderson resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights.
Chief Anderson had no personal involvement with Plaintiff during the incident that is the subject
of this lawsuit and in fact was not even on the scene. Chief Anderson did not acquiesce in or
ratify any alleged improper conduct on the part of Defendant Shuler. Chief Anderson did not fail
to train, supervise, discipline, adequately hire, or oversee Defendant Shuler or other employees.
Chief Anderson is further entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claims.
c. Defendant Metropolitan Nashville Police Department:
The Metropolitan Nashville Police Department is not an entity capable of being sued
and thus should be dismissed as a Defendant in this lawsuit.
d. Defendant Phillip Shuler
Defendant Phillip Shuler denies that he violated any clearly established constitutional
right to which Plaintiff was entitled. He further denies that he is liable to Plaintiff on any statelaw claim. In fact, his actions were objectively reasonable and he had probable cause to arrest

2

Plaintiff. Under the rapidly evolving circumstances of the incident he employed only such force
as was reasonably necessary to apprehend and control Plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiff’s own acts
or omissions were the proximate cause of her injuries.
C. ISSUES RESOLVED
Jurisdiction and venue are not challenged.
D. ISSUES STILL IN DISPUTE
Liability and damages are in dispute.
E. INITIAL DISCLOSURES
The parties shall exchange Initial Disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(1) on or before January 27, 2014.
F. DISCOVERY
The parties shall complete all written discovery and depose all fact witnesses on or before
July 31, 2014. Discovery is not stayed during dispositive motions unless ordered by the Court.
All motions relating to discovery must be filed on or before August 15, 2014. No
motions concerning discovery are to be filed unless the parties have conferred in good faith and,
unable to resolve their differences, have scheduled and participated in a conference telephone
call with Judge Bryant.
G. SUBSEQUENT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
The parties shall participate in a subsequent case management conference on June 25, 2014,
at 10:00 a.m. The subsequent case management conference will be conducted by telephone and
counsel for plaintiff will initiate the call.

3

H. MOTIONS TO AMEND
The parties shall file all Motions to Amend the Complaint or to add parties on or before
February 25, 2014.
I. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS
The Plaintiff shall disclose her expert witnesses by July 31, 2014, and the Defendant shall
disclose its expert witnesses by August 30, 2014.
J. DEPOSITION OF EXPERT WITNESSES
Depositions of expert witnesses shall be completed by October 30, 2014.
K. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
The parties shall file all dispositive motions on or before December 8, 2014. Responses
shall be due 28 days after the date the motion is filed, and the reply shall be filed 14 days after
the date the response is filed. If dispositive motions are filed early, the response and reply dates
are moved up accordingly. Memoranda in support of the motion or response are limited to
twenty-five (25) pages absent Court permission for a longer pleading. If a reply is filed, it is
limited to five (5) pages absent Court permission for a longer pleading.
L. ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY
The parties have reached agreements on how to conduct electronic discovery. Thus, the
default standard contained in Administrative Order No. 174 need not apply in this case.
Disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information will be handled by producing
electronically stored information in hard-copy form, or, where the documents are voluminous, by
making them available in paper form for inspection and review at an agreeable time and place.
The parties have taken reasonable measures to preserve potentially discoverable information.
The parties agree that discovery will not be unduly burdensome and will not impose unduly

4

expensive costs on either side, and that discovery will be limited to data reasonably available to
the parties in the ordinary course of business. The parties agree that discovery will be reasonable
and will be limited to matters that are relevant to claims/defenses raised or likely to lead to the
discovery of claims/defenses raised.
M. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The parties have not engaged in settlement discussions and have not determined whether
alternative dispute resolution is appropriate.
N. ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME
Jury trial is set to begin on April 28, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. A pretrial conference shall be held on
April 13, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Sharp. Trial is expected to last three (3) to four (4) days.
Judge Sharp will issue a separate order setting forth his requirements for trial at a later date.
It is so ORDERED.
s/ John S. Bryant
______________________________________
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN S. BRYANT
APPROVED FOR ENTRY:
/s/ Paul W. Moser______________________
Paul W. Moser, BPR No. 22205
Marc A. Walwyn, BPR No. 022431
1994 Gallatin Pike North, Suite 305
Madison, TN 37115
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Keli J. Oliver__________________________
Mr. Saul Solomon BPR No. 11689 Director of Law
Ms. Keli J. Oliver, BPR No. 21023
Mr. Derrick C. Smit, BPR No. 13961

5

Mr. R. Alex Dickerson, BPR No. 27184
Assistant Metropolitan Attorneys
P.O. Box 196300
Nashville, TN 37219
[phone]
[e-mail]
John M.L. Brown__________________
Mr. John M. L. Brown, BPR No. 5438
Attorney for Defendant Phillip Shuler
222 Second Avenue North, Suite 312
Nashville, TN 37202
[phone]
[e-mail]

6