Howell v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 121

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 115 ) GRANTED. The Motion to Stay and Sever (Doc. No. 113 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The claims shall not be severed. Pending the return of Defendant Gonzalez, this case is STAYED, and the case file is administratively closed. The parties shall file a joint notice within 30 days of Defendant Gonzalez's return. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 8/24/2022. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ln)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
MATTHEW HOWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUAN MARCOS GONZALEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:17-cv-01413
JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FRENSLEY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Stay and Sever Claims filed by Officers Durham

and Gonzalez (Doc. No. 113) and a Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 115) one of the documents related
to the Motion to Stay. Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. No. 117) and Defendants Durham and
Gonzalez replied (Doc. No. 118). By order of the Court (Doc. No. 119), Defendants supplemented
their motion (Doc. No. 120). The positions of the remaining defendants are not represented in the
briefing, and they have not responded to the pending motions.
I.

MOTION TO SEAL

As an initial matter, the Court addresses the Motion to Seal, which Plaintiff does not
oppose. Courts have considerable discretion in managing their records. See In re Knoxville NewsSentinel Co., Inc. v. Knoxville Journal Corp., 723 F.2d 470, 473 (6th Cir. 1983). “The courts have
long recognized, [however], a strong presumption in favor of openness as to court records.” Shane
Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). When deciding
a motion to seal, the Court weighs the “presumptive right of the public to inspect” judicial material
with the interests of privacy. In re Knoxville News 723 F.2d at 473-74.

Case 3:17-cv-01413 Document 121 Filed 08/24/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1622

Here, the interests of privacy clearly outweigh the presumptive right of the public to inspect
the document Defendants seek to seal. In making this determination, the Court notes that the
document is immaterial to the subject matter of this litigation and therefore will not play a role in
the Court’s decisions on the merits of this case. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (explaining that
the public interest is rooted in the principle that “the public is entitled to assess for itself the merits
of judicial decisions.”) Additionally, it contains materials which may reasonably be sealed in the
interest of national security. See Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834
F.3d 589, 593 (6th Cir. 2016) (noting that national security may be cause to seal). Finally, the
Court finds that the document is not suitable for redaction and therefore shall be sealed in its
entirety. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (explaining that the seal must be narrowly tailored to
meet the needs of sealing).
Accordingly, the Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 115) is GRANTED.
II.

MOTION TO STAY AND SEVER CLAIMS

Defendants Durham and Gonzalez move to stay the claims against them pursuant to the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”), 50 U.S.C. § 3932. Defendants additionally move to
sever the claims against them from the claims against the remaining defendants—Officers Smith,
Moser, and Simmonds—and allow the latter claims to proceed while the former are stayed.
A.

Motion to Sever
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 permits courts to sever claims. Factors that the Court

considers in deciding whether to sever a claim include:
(1) whether the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence;
(2) whether the claims present some common questions of law or fact;
(3) whether settlement of the claims or judicial economy would be facilitated;
(4) whether prejudice would be avoided if severance were granted; and
(5) whether different witnesses and documentary proof are required for separate
claims.
2
Case 3:17-cv-01413 Document 121 Filed 08/24/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1623

Parchman v. SLM Corp., 896 F.3d 728, 733 (6th Cir. 2018). “District courts have broad discretion
to determine whether to sever claims when doing so advances the administration of justice.”
Productive MD, LLC v. Aetna Health, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 2d 901, 940 (M.D. Tenn. 2013).
The first factor weighs in favor of severance. The encounter with the movant Defendants
occurred nearly two years before from the encounter with the non-movant Defendants. Plaintiff
concedes that these incidents are not part of the same transaction or occurrence. The second factor,
however, weighs against severance. Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants are rooted in the same
allegations of retaliatory conduct. He alleges that both groups of officers arrested him in order to
punish him for exercising his constitutional rights. Accordingly, common questions of law and
fact are likely to arise from these separate claims.
The final three enumerated factors also weigh against severance. The Court finds that the
interests of judicial economy, potential prejudice to the Plaintiff, and the potential of repeat
witnesses and proof weigh against severance. To sever these claims would require Plaintiff to
pursue separately actions which have common questions, are likely to involve the same or related
evidence, and which are likely to involve the same witnesses. Plaintiff is likely to be prejudiced if
forced to pursue his claims separately. Additionally, judicial resources greatly favor allowing the
claims proceed together, especially where, as here, the expected duration of the requested stay is
approximately four months. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to sever is DENIED.
B.

Motion to Stay
Having the determined that the claims shall not be severed, the Court next turns to the

motion to stay. Pursuant to the SCRA, when a servicemember moves for a stay, the Court must
grant the motion where the servicemember has submitted:

3
Case 3:17-cv-01413 Document 121 Filed 08/24/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1624

(A)

A letter or other communication setting forth facts stating the manner in
which current military duty requirements materially affect the
servicemember's ability to appear and stating a date when the
servicemember will be available to appear.

(B)

A letter or other communication from the servicemember's commanding
officer stating that the servicemember's current military duty prevents
appearance and that military leave is not authorized for the servicemember
at the time of the letter.

50 U.S.C. § 3932(b)(2).
By previous order, the Court found that Defendants’ motion did not meet these statutory
requirements and ordered Defendants to supplement the motion. (Doc. No. 119). Defendants have
done so, providing a letter from Defendant Gonzalez’s commanding officer stating that Defendant
is stationed outside of the contiguous United States which makes it “extremely unlikely” that he
will be available to participate in the current litigation. The Court finds that the first statutory
requirement is met by considering Defendant’s motion and deployment documents together.
Through the motion, Defendant states that he is unable to participate in defense of this action due
to his deployment. The deployment documents provided by Defendant supports his assertions.
(See Doc. Nos. 113, 116). Defendant is expected to return by November or December 2022.
The Court finds that the statutory requirements have been met. Accordingly, the case must
be stayed pending the return of Defendant Gonzalez. See 50 U.S.C. § 3932(b)(1). Defendants’
motion to stay is GRANTED.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 115) GRANTED. The Motion
to Stay and Sever (Doc. No. 113) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The claims shall
not be severed. Pending the return of Defendant Gonzalez, this case is STAYED, and the case file

4
Case 3:17-cv-01413 Document 121 Filed 08/24/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1625

is administratively closed. The parties shall file a joint notice within 30 days of Defendant
Gonzalez’s return.
It is so ORDERED.
____________________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
Case 3:17-cv-01413 Document 121 Filed 08/24/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1626