Spencer et al v. City of Cibolo, Texas et al

Filing 47

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 40 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney. (bc)

Case 5:20-cv-00350-JKP-ESC Document 47 Filed 07/21/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
CYNTHIA SPENCER, WILLIAM
SPENCER, LISA JACKSON, JENNIFER
JOHN, BRIAN BYRD, AMY BYRD,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF CIBOLO, TEXAS, STANLEY
BOYLE, MARK D. ALLEN, STEVEN
QUINN, JOEL HICKS,
Defendants.

SA-20-CV-0350 -JKP

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production [#40]. All non-dispositive
pretrial matters were referred to the undersigned on March 23, 2020 [#4]. The Court held a
video discovery hearing on the motion on July 21, 2021 at which the parties appeared through
counsel. In their motion, Plaintiffs request that the Court compel Defendants to produce
documents and videos as well as to supplement/amend their responses to Plaintiffs’
interrogatories [#40]. Prior to the hearing, the parties conferred and resolved many of Plaintiffs’
requests; however, seven issues remained in dispute at the hearing. Those seven issues are
described in the parties’ joint advisory [#44].
During the hearing, the Court issued oral rulings on the disputed issues, which it now
confirms with the following written orders:
Disputed Issue #1: Defendants must confer on whether there is additional responsive
information from the Defendants’ political Facebook pages (particularly information related to
blocking) that has not been downloaded and produced to Plaintiffs. Counsel should confer with
each other on the specific data and information sought.
1

If Defendants locate additional

Case 5:20-cv-00350-JKP-ESC Document 47 Filed 07/21/21 Page 2 of 3

responsive information, they should produce it. If they do not, they should supplement their
responses and clarify that there is no additional responsive information. This should be
accomplished within 21 days of the date of this Order.
Disputed Issue #2: Defendants have confirmed on the record that they have produced all
body cam footage responsive to Plaintiffs’ request in their possession, custody, or control. Thus,
this issue is moot. This ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiffs bringing a spoliation motion at a
later time.
Disputed issue #3: The City of Cibolo must produce any ethics complaints or police
reports concerning any of the Defendants during the time period that each Defendant has been in
political office. This should be done within 21 days.
Disputed Issue #4:

Plaintiffs’ motion with regard to the documents described in

Disputed Issue #4 is denied. This ruling does not preclude Plaintiffs from questioning witnesses
during depositions about recent resignations and retirements by city officials and whether they
relate to the City of Cibolo’s alleged censoring practice.
Disputed Issue #5: Defendants must supplement their responses to Plaintiffs’
interrogatories to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). In particular, Plaintiffs should amend the
responses to interrogatories by each individual Defendant to clarify (by Bates number or other
identifier, such as the category numbers in the December 17, 2020 letter) which documents are
incorporated into the response. Also, for their supplemental productions, Defendants should
clarify which interrogatory answers and requests for production each category of supplemental
documents pertains to. Defendants have 21 days to supplement their responses.
Disputed Issue #6: Plaintiffs may draft a new or revised interrogatory to elicit a response
specifically with regard to Defendants’ assertion in its Twenty-Fourth Defense that Defendants

2

Case 5:20-cv-00350-JKP-ESC Document 47 Filed 07/21/21 Page 3 of 3

“have a First Amendment right and privilege under the Constitution to be free from the continual
harassment of the Plaintiffs herein.”
Disputed Issue #7: Defendants should supplement their answers to Common
Interrogatory No. 3 with answers from each individual Defendant identifying any
communications each Defendant had regarding the enforcement of the policies.
Thus, in accordance with the foregoing:
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [#40] is GRANTED IN PART as
described above. All relief not expressly granted is DENIED.
SIGNED this 21st day of July, 2021.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3