Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08140/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08140-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ruth Bradburn Mitchell, individually and

as personal representative of the Estate of

Kenneth Mitchell; Kenneth Christopher

Mitchell, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of Flagstaff; Roy Taylor; Jane Doe

Taylor, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-08140-PCT-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs' motion to compel production of FTO and OIT

documents (doc. 118), defendants' response (doc. 143), plaintiffs' reply (doc. 154),

defendants' supplemental response (doc. 164), and plaintiffs' objection to defendants'

supplemental response (doc. 165). Next, we have plaintiffs' motion to compel documents in

privilege log (doc. 119), defendants' response (doc. 142), and plaintiffs' reply (doc. 155). We

also have plaintiffs' motion to compel medical vision records of Roy Taylor (doc. 120),

defendants' response (doc. 141), and plaintiffs' reply (doc. 156). Finally, we have defendants'

motion to preclude plaintiffs' exhibits and expert addendum reports (doc. 134), plaintiffs'

response (doc. 139), and defendants' reply (doc. 151).

I

This action arises from an incident where Officer Roy Taylor shot and killed plaintiffs'

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 167 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Defendants have already produced Officer Murray's training records from the night

Kenneth Mitchell was shot.

2

 After briefing closed, defendants filed a "supplemental response," arguing that the

motion is moot because plaintiffs have deposed Officer Murray. Briefing contemplates a

motion, response, and reply. Defendants did not seek leave of court to file a supplement, and

we generally do not allow parties to supplement briefs once briefing is complete. That a

fully-briefed motion has not yet been ruled on is not an open invitation to "supplement"

earlier filings. We do not consider defendants' supplemental response here. Moreover,

plaintiffs have not withdrawn the motion and defendants have not produced the requested

documents. The motion is not moot.

- 2 -

family member, Kenneth Mitchell, while responding to a domestic disturbance call involving

Kenneth Mitchell and his son, plaintiff Kenneth Christopher Mitchell. Officer Murray, an

officer in training, was one of the officers who responded to the call. He knocked on the

front door of the apartment where Kenneth and his son were arguing.

Plaintiffs assert that they have learned through deposition testimony that Officer

Murray had problems knocking loudly on doors during training. Plaintiffs move, pursuant

to Rule 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., for an order compelling defendants to produce the Field Training

Officer ("FTO") reports and notebook and the Officer in Training ("OIT") reports pertaining

to Officer Murray prior to the date of the shooting.1

 Defendants argue in response that none

of plaintiffs' requests for production requested the training records of Officer Murray, a nonparty. But plaintiffs requested "[a]ny and all documents relating to police officer training"

and "all documents which set forth the initial training program currently given to police

officers." Mot. to Compel FTO, ex. B at 1-2. These requests for production are broad

enough to encompass training records pertaining to Officer Murray.

Next, defendants argue that Officer Murray's training records for the months prior to

the shooting are irrelevant to plaintiffs' claims of excessive force, because Officer Murray

did not use force and did not even see the shooting.2

 Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. permits

a party to seek discovery "relevant to any party's claim or defense" that is "reasonably

calculated to lead" to admissible evidence. Plaintiffs argue that Officer Murray's prior

problems with knocking loudly on doors is relevant, not only because his credibility is at

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 167 Filed 09/14/12 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

stake as a witness, but also because he knocked on the door the night of the shooting, which

is relevant to the sequence of events claimed by defendants. We agree. If Officer Murray

had documented problems knocking loudly on doors, this might inform a fact finder's

conclusion as to whether Kenneth Mitchell knew the police were there, whether Kenneth or

his son were defying police orders, and whether Taylor's actions leading up to and

culminating in the shooting were appropriate under the circumstances. Plaintiffs' motion to

compel the FTO reports and OIT materials of Officer Murray is granted.

II

Plaintiffs sent written requests for production that included a request for e-mail

concerning the shooting. In addition to providing some documents, defendants submitted a

privilege log regarding several e-mails for which they asserted work-product protection,

attorney client privilege, or both (doc. 119-2 at 17-18). The privilege log identifies the

number of pages of each e-mail, identifies each email by Bates number, and identifies the

date. Under a column titled "Document Description," defendants describe each document

as "[i]nternal E-mail regarding subject incident." Under a column titled

"Privilege/Protection," defendants list the privilege or protection asserted without further

comment (doc. 119-2 at 17-18). The privilege log does not name either the sender or

recipient of the e-mails.

Plaintiffs have not challenged defendants' assertion of attorney-client privilege. They

argue, however, that defendants' assertion of work-product protection is insufficient under

Rule 26(b)(5)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., and ask for an order compelling production of the e-mails

for which the work-product protection is asserted. Defendants respond by stating that the emails are "internal e-mails between City of Flagstaff employees and various attorneys

regarding the subject incident, made in anticipation of litigation." Resp. to Mot. to Compel

E-mails at 2. They argue that the privilege log describes everything except the content, and

that they could not have provided any additional information without revealing the protected

information. Defendants did not provide the Court with a copy of any of the e-mails, thus

we have been unable to conduct an in camera review of the documents at issue.

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 167 Filed 09/14/12 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 Because plaintiffs did not challenge the defendants' assertion of attorney-client

privilege, defendants are not required to produce any e-mails for which attorney-client

privilege was asserted, or for which attorney-client privilege was asserted in addition to

work-product protection.

- 4 -

The work-product doctrine protects documents from discovery that were "prepared

in anticipation of litigation. . . by or for another party or its representative." Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(3)(A). A party claiming work-product protection must "describe the nature of the

documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed - and do so in a

manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other

parties to assess the claim." Id. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). Here, defendants have given virtually no

information from which we can decide whether the materials at issue are properly designated

as work product. Without at least knowing who sent and who received each e-mail, we

cannot meaningfully address the question of whether e-mails "regarding the subject incident"

were made in anticipation of litigation. See United States v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. CIV06-1740-FCD-KJM, 2007 WL 1500551, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2007) (privilege log must

contain "description of responsive material withheld, the identity and position of its author,

the date it was written, the identity and position of all addressees and recipients, the

material's present location, and specific reasons for its being withheld, including the privilege

invoked and grounds thereof") (citing United States v. Constr. Prods. Research, Inc., 73 F.3d

464, 473 (2d Cir. 1996)).

Instead, defendants simply ask us to trust that these e-mails, sent by someone to

someone on a particular date regarding the "subject incident," were sent in anticipation of

litigation. We conclude that defendants have not met their burden to show that the e-mails

are protected by the work-product doctrine. Accordingly, defendants must produce the emails.3

 See Bronsink v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. C09-00751-MJP, 2010 WL

597489, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 16, 2010) (granting motion to compel after party did not

"supply sufficient detail" in privilege log to support a finding that the challenged documents

were privileged).

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 167 Filed 09/14/12 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 These exhibits include diagrams of the scene, line of sight, gunshot trajectories, and

a shooting reconstruction.

- 5 -

III

Next, plaintiffs ask for an order compelling defendants to produce Roy Taylor's vision

records. They argue that these records are relevant, because Taylor claims that he saw

Kenneth Mitchell pointing a gun at his son, and was therefore justified in shooting Kenneth.

Plaintiffs have not requested these records by issuing a subpoena to Taylor's medical

providers, but rather have requested that defendants produce these documents pursuant to

Rule 34, Fed. R. Civ. P. But Rule 34(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. does not contemplate requests for

"documents from a party that are possessed by another person." Schwartz v. Home Depot

U.S.A., Inc., No. CV-06-2168-PHX-FJM, 2007 WL 2020112, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 6, 2007)

(citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1) (party may serve request on another party

to produce documents "in the responding party's possession, custody, or control"). Instead,

the Federal Rules permit plaintiffs to serve non-parties with subpoenas to compel the

production of documents in the possession of non-parties. Schwartz, 2007 WL 2020112, at

*1. If non-parties do not produce the documents, then plaintiffs can move to compel

production. Id. Plaintiffs' motion, which asks us to compel Taylor to produce his medical

records, "attempts to bypass the discovery procedure established by the federal rules." Id.

Accordingly, it is denied. 

IV

Finally, defendants move to preclude exhibits of plaintiffs' experts, Ronald Scott and

Thomas Streed.4

 Defendants argue that the exhibits were disclosed late because they were

not disclosed by the initial expert disclosure deadline. Plaintiffs respond that these exhibits

are merely demonstrative, were not relied upon by Scott or Streed when forming their initial

opinions, were disclosed as soon as they were created, and were disclosed by the final

supplementation deadline.

Without the context in which these exhibits might be used by the experts during their

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 167 Filed 09/14/12 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

testimony, we think it premature to rule on whether a jury should be allowed to view the

exhibits. If these are merely demonstrative, as plaintiffs claim, they were created for trial and

will not play a factor in summary judgment practice. At this stage we do not even know if

there will be a trial, much less if plaintiffs will call these experts to testify, or if plaintiffs will

try to show the exhibits to a jury. We decline to rule on what is essentially a very early

motion in limine, and deny defendants' motion on that basis. Our denial is without prejudice

to defendants making an appropriate objection to the use of the exhibits at trial.

V

Upon granting a motion to compel, Rule 37(a)(5)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P. requires us,

"after giving an opportunity to be heard," to order the losing party to pay the reasonable

expenses of making the motion. If a motion to compel is denied, Rule 37(a)(5)(B) requires

us, after providing an opportunity to be heard, to order the moving party to pay the

reasonable expenses of opposing the motion. Here, we have granted two of plaintiffs'

motions to compel and denied the third. The underlying objections to and arguments

underlying the motions were at least substantially justified. Accordingly, we will not order

an award of fees. See id. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii); 37(a)(5)(B).

Throughout this lawsuit, the parties have clashed over discovery. This has burdened

the Court in a number of discovery disputes, many of which were accompanied by requests

for expedited consideration. Counsel are reminded as this action moves forward that

working together cooperatively is in the best interests of their clients.

VI

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs' motion to compel production of FTO and

OIT documents (doc. 118). Defendants shall produce the requested documents within five

(5) days of the date of this Order.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs' motion to compel documents in privilege

log (doc. 119). Defendants shall produce the e-mails, limited to those for which only workproduct protection was asserted, within five (5) days of the date of this Order.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs' motion to compel medical vision records

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 167 Filed 09/14/12 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

of Roy Taylor (doc. 120).

IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' exhibits and

expert addendum reports (doc. 134). This denial is without prejudice to defendants making

an appropriate objection during trial, should this action proceed to trial.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-08140-FJM Document 167 Filed 09/14/12 Page 7 of 7