Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_03-cv-01150/USCOURTS-almd-2_03-cv-01150-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

The motion to compel is referred to the Magistrate Judge, while the motion to 1

strike the affidavit is referred to the presiding judge, who will decide the pending motion

for summary judgment.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

URBANIQUE PRODUCTIONS/ )

MUSIC PUBLISHING, et al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:03CV1150-ID

) [WO]

THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

On 19 March 2006, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Or Otherwise to Strike the

Affidavit of Defendant Conway (Doc. # 62). The defendant filed a response on 24 March 1

2006 (Doc. # 63). The plaintiff seeks an order compelling the defendants to produce two

of the defendants’ confidential informants, Eric Keller and Amanada Blaisdale, for

depositions. The plaintiff also avers that he has made a diligent search for the two

prospective deponents but he has “been unable to locate them”. 

The court has reviewed the defendants’ response and has noted, but not considered,

the defendants’ representations, because the plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing

to warrant an order compelling the defendants to produce the two witnesses. Specifically,

the plaintiff failed to allege that either of the two persons are employed by the defendants or

Case 2:03-cv-01150-ID-VPM Document 64 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 2
In that regard, the court notes the defendants’ averment that “Keller never entered 2

into a formal confidential informant’s agreement to work with the Montgomery Police

Department, and Defendants, therefore have no information with which her whereabouts

can be determined” (Doc. # 63).

are otherwise under their control. For aught that appears from the face of the motion, neither

person is employed by defendants, and neither person is in the defendants’ custody and

control. Accordingly, it appears that neither is subject to the defendants’ direction. For that 2

reason, it is

ORDERED that the motion to compel is DENIED.

DONE this 27 day of March, 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01150-ID-VPM Document 64 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2