Collins et al v. City of Milwaukee et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 7/24/2017 REFERRING 24 Defendants' Rule 7(h) Expedited Non-Dispositive MOTION for Protective Order to Magistrate Judge David E. Jones for disposition. (cc: all counsel)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHARLES COLLINS, TRACY ADAMS, on
behalf of her minor child, D.A., CALEB
ROBERTS, STEPHEN JANSEN,
GREGORY CHAMBERS ALICIA
SILVESTRE, JERIMIAH OLIVAR, DAVID
CROWLEY, and JEREMY BROWN,

Case No. 17-CV-234-JPS

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF MILWAUKEE, MILWAUKEE
FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSION, and
CHIEF EDWARD FLYNN, in his official
capacity as the Chief of the Milwaukee Police
Department,

ORDER

Defendants.

On July 18, 2017, Defendants filed an expedited motion for a
protective order. (Docket #24). Defendants seek the Court’s permission to
destroy some of the Milwaukee Police Department’s (“MPD”) Mobile
Digital Video/Audio Recordings of traffic stops, known colloquially as
“dash-cam video,” which they have been retaining since the start of this
litigation. Normally, dash-cam video is maintained for 120 days per MPD
policy. However, Defendants have been preserving the video beyond that
period in light of the present suit.
Defendants request that the Court relieve them of their duty to
preserve the video beyond the standard 120-day period. They contend that
the video is of limited relevance and that they will imminently run out of

virtual storage space for the video, necessitating the purchase of additional
storage space. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that the dash-cam
video is highly relevant to their claims and that Defendants have sufficient
resources to absorb the cost of additional storage space. The parties have
been unsuccessful in negotiating production of a sample of the video for
Plaintiffs’ review.
In light of the parties’ competing views as to the relevance of the
video, the burden of maintaining it, and the stalled progress of negotiations
on the matter, the Court finds that the wiser exercise of discretion is to refer
this motion to Magistrate Judge David E. Jones, the assigned magistrate, for
disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Gen. L. R.
72(b)(2)(S) (E.D. Wis.). Magistrate Jones may conduct conferences or
request further submissions from counsel as may be necessary to address
the parties’ positions. Until such time as Magistrate Jones issues his ruling,
Defendants shall continue to preserve all dash-cam video as they have been
prior to the filing of their motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for protective order
(Docket #24) be and the same is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge
David E. Jones for disposition.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 24th day of July, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2