Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOANNE JENKINS, et al,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:03CV208-SPM/AK

CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, et al,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

Presently before the Court in the above entitled action are the following motions: 

(1) Defendant City of Tallahassee’s Motion to Compel (doc. 59); (2) Defendants’ Motion

to Compel Elaine Harper’s Deposition Testimony (doc. 61); and (3) Plaintiffs’ Updated

Motion to Compel. (Doc. 75). The motions are all fully briefed and the matters are now

ready for decision. 

Defendant City’s Motion to Compel (doc. 59)

Interrogatory No. 11, served upon Plaintiff Joanne Jenkins on August 5, 2005,

asks for a list of all her medical providers over the past ten years, including the dates of

treatment and conditions for which she was treated. 

Plaintiff objected to this interrogatory as overbroad, burdensome, and irrelevant. 

Since the filing of the City’s motion, Plaintiff has listed only one provider which she

claims is her only relevant medical source. This is not sufficient. As the City correctly

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 21
Page 2 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

notes, Plaintiff has placed at issue in this lawsuit her mental condition because she

seeks damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress. Although Plaintiff

contends that her physical condition is not at issue, and she is not alleging to have

suffered any physical injuries resulting from the actions of the Defendants, the City is

entitled to a list of all providers over the last ten years to determine the extent to which it

wants to explore these sources for possible pre-existing or inter-related conditions. The

City also asks the Court to order production of all medical records from the providers

once Plaintiff has listed them in her response to this interrogatory. (Defendant’s motion

at p. 15). 

First, the issue of all of Plaintiff’s medical records in not in a proper posture

before the Court for decision. Defendant did not raise the issue of Request for

Production of Documents No. 1, which asks for all her medical records, in its motion, it

raised it in its reply. (Doc. 82, p. 4). Further, as the Court understands Defendant’s

position, it wants a list of all the medical providers and the conditions for which they

treated Plaintiff so that it can decide which may be relevant. Thus, the Court finds that

the better procedure with regard to Plaintiff’s medical records is that she provide the

City with a complete and accurate list of all medical providers, their dates of treatment,

and the conditions for which she sought treatment. From this list the City should

determine what providers have relevant information and make their requests for the

information accordingly. Plaintiff’s counsel has stated that he has or was ordering all

her health records so that formal discovery requests for this information can be made

after Defendant has studied the list of sources. (Doc. 59, Exhibit I). Of course not every

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 21
Page 3 of 21

1

 According to Plaintiff she has produced these records on January 12, 2006.

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

condition for which Plaintiff has sought treatment for the past ten years will be relevant,

but Plaintiff may make whatever arguments she wishes to make when the formal

requests for records are made. 

With regard to the mental health records of Dr. Snapp, Defendant has served a

subpoena upon TMH Family Practice for these records, which were identified by

counsel during several exchanges (doc. 59, exhibit J), and more particularly, Plaintiff’s

attorney has by letter dated October 6, 2005, affirmatively offered to provide the records

of Dr. Snapp. (Doc. 59, Exhibit I). Thus, these records shall be produced forthwith.1

However, the City has not adequately apprised the Court as to the nature of the other

records sought by the request upon TMH, such as dates of treatment and conditions

treated, presumably because Plaintiff did not fully answer Interrogatory No. 11, and the

Court will not order a blanket request for all Plaintiff’s medical records from this source. 

Again, Plaintiff shall respond fully to Interrogatory No. 11, and Defendant may decide

after receiving the complete response from her which records it wishes to request. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections to this request are overruled. Plaintiff shall answer

fully and completely Interrogatory No. 11 for the ten year period requested and

any records of Dr. Snapp not heretofore produced shall be produced to the City

forthwith. 

Interrogatory No. 2 requests the list of her previous employers for the past ten

years, business addresses, dates of employment and rates of pay. Plaintiff objected on

grounds that the request was overbroad, burdensome, and irrelevant because she is

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 21
Page 4 of 21

2

 Baltazar v. Florida State Hospital, 4:04CV462-SPM/AK (doc. 36), affirmed on

Rule 72 appeal to the district judge. (Doc. 40).

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

not seeking lost wages as part of her damages. However, she provided a list of

employers and their addresses, but did not identify the dates of employment or rates of

pay. The City argues that the response is facially incomplete, and that Jenkins’ made

conflicting statements about her employment history during her deposition that needs

resolution. The City also argues that the information is calculated to lead to admissible

evidence with regard to the effects of the psychological damage Plaintiff claims to have

incurred as a result of Defendants’ actions on her ability to sustain employment. 

Plaintiff’s employment history, Defendant contends, is also relevant to her credibility in

that the City has other evidence that shows she was fired for theft and deception and

may have lied on subsequent job applications about the incident related in a police

report regarding her Krispy Kreme employment. (Doc. 59, Exhibit R). In addition to

compelling a complete response to this interrogatory, the City also seeks leave from the

Court to serve Plaintiff’s current employers with subpoenas for their personnel files.

Plaintiff objects to the proposed service of the subpoena on grounds that it would

be harassing or embarrassing to serve her current employers and could result in her

termination. Plaintiff also cites an Order entered in an unrelated case by this Court for

the proposition that less intrusive means of obtaining the information should be

attempted.2

 Instead, Plaintiff offers to stipulate that the injuries she alleges as arising

from the claims raised in this lawsuit have not had an adverse impact on her

employment. 

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 4 of 21
Page 5 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

In its reply, the City avers by affidavit that it has verified that Plaintiff is no longer

employed by the entities she named previously. (Doc. 82, Exhibits BB, CC).

In light of Plaintiff’s agreement to stipulate that her ability to work has been

unaffected by any injuries suffered by the actions alleged in this lawsuit, and that she is

not seeking past or future lost wages, the Court finds that the information sought by the

interrogatory is no longer relevant, and Plaintiff is not required to respond. Further,

insofar as the City seeks information about the incident resulting in Plaintiff’s arrest for

fraud and theft, some other means should be employed to obtain this information than

combing through her personnel files. Defendant should depose Plaintiff on this issue or

make a more particularized document request. Therefore, the motion to compel is

denied as to Interrogatory No. 2 and the request to serve subpoenas on her employers.

Request for Production No. 8 asks for “[a]ll emails, diaries, journals, calendars,

chronologies, recordings, computer records or other items prepared by, or on behalf of,

Plaintiff which relate to or reflect the incidents described in her complaint.” Plaintiff

responded that she had no such documents that were not privileged. 

Defendant argues that her privilege log was untimely and did not list a diary or

journal, which Plaintiff admitted at her deposition to keeping in her home. 

Plaintiff has stated in her response that she has looked in her home for the

papers she referred to at her deposition, but they have “disappeared.”

In its reply, Defendant contends that if these records are in fact now missing then

sanctions for spoilation of evidence should be rendered. From the facts before the

Court there is not enough information to determine that Plaintiff intentionally destroyed

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 5 of 21
Page 6 of 21

3

 This document is not an affidavit since it is not notarized, thus the Court will

refer to it as a sworn statement. 

4

 Plaintiff’s counsel cites Fla. Stat. 454.23 which provides: “Any person not

licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in this state or holds himself or herself

out to the public as qualified to practice law in this state, or who willfully pretends to be,

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

her “journal,” which she later described as a few pages of notes, and since Defendant

raised this issue in its reply Plaintiff has not been given the opportunity to address it. 

The Court cannot compel something which the Plaintiff does not have, and therefore, as

to this item, the motion to compel is denied. If Defendant wants to pursue the issue of

spoilation it should consider raising it by separate motion.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Elaine Harper’s Deposition Testimony (doc. 61)

Defendants took the deposition of Elaine Harper, Plaintiff Joanne Jenkins’ cousin

and a witness with considerable knowledge of Jenkins’ claims, on November 28, 2005. 

At her deposition Harper invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination when asked whether she recognized several documents, specifically a

letter to Police Chief McNeil dated December 1, 2003, the original and two amended

complaints filed in this cause, two civil rights complaint forms, a motion for leave to file

an amended complaint that does not appear to have been filed in this cause, and

Harper’s signed sworn statement dated August 23, 2005.3

 (Exhibits 1 through 8 to

Harpers Deposition, Doc. 61, Exhibit C). Plaintiff Jenkins testified at her own deposition

that Harper helped her considerably with the drafting of her pro se complaints and other

papers filed in this lawsuit. 

Plaintiff is fearful for Harper that a criminal prosecution will be initiated against

her for the unlicensed practice of law. 4 (Doc. 61, Exhibit F). Plaintiff also rejects any

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 6 of 21
Page 7 of 21

or willfully takes or uses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he or she

is qualified, or recognized by law as qualified, to practice law in this state, commits a

felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s.775.082, s. 775.083, or

s.775.084.”

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

relevancy of the pro se pleadings filed in this cause since the third amended complaint,

filed by her present attorney, supersedes these pleadings. She also seeks a protective

order on Harper’s behalf.

In reply, Defendants correctly assert the applicable law regarding the protective

order, i.e. Plaintiff has no standing to seek a protective order on Harper’s behalf. See

Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 427-428

(M.D. Fla. 2005) (party has standing to challenge a subpoena to a non-party only if the

party alleges a personal right or privilege with respect to the subpoena). According to

the letter attached to the reply it appears that Defendants have been advised that

Harper has retained her own attorney now, who is reiterating the position taken by

Jenkins’ counsel. (Doc. 105, Exhibit C). Thus, the standing issue is really moot since

Harper’s new attorney obviously intends to assert Harper’s rights independently, if

pressed to do so. 

The short answer is that the Court does not find most of this line of questioning to

be relevant to the issues raised in this lawsuit. The relevant pleading before the Court

is the Third Amended Complaint, filed by counsel. Thus, it is immaterial whether or not

Harper recognizes or otherwise admits to preparing the pro se complaints or other court

papers, except as to some intended criminal prosecution. If defense counsel in this

matter intends to pursue this issue with Harper he should do it in another forum and not

bog down these proceedings with collateral issues concerning a non-party to this

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 7 of 21
Page 8 of 21

5

 There are also several instances where Defendants addressed items not listed

in Plaintiff’s updated motion or failed to respond to items which were included in the

updated motion as still being at issue. 

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

lawsuit. However, Defendants are entitled to ask Harper about the letter to Chief

McNeil, which does not purport to be a legal document nor does it seem to implicate

any of the acts forbidden by the Florida statute cited by Plaintiff. Likewise, Defendants

may ask questions about Harper’s own statement. This statement relates purely factual

matters, it states no legal position or offers any legal advice or legal perspective. 

Defendants are clearly entitled to inquire of Ms. Harper her knowledge of the events at

issue, which is all that is recited in her statement. Thus, Defendant’s motion to compel is

granted, insofar as Ms. Harper shall respond to questions about her statement, the

letter to Chief McNeil, and other factual issues within her personal knowledge which are

related to the events described in the complaint. The motion is denied in all other

respects.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc. 75)

As an initial matter, the Court will not reiterate the substance of each discovery

request, and where the Defendants have represented in their response that production

has now been made, the Court accepts these representations since discovery is not

filed, and Plaintiff could have, but did not seek leave to file a reply refuting any of these

representations. The Court ruled on all the interrogatories set forth in the original

motion to compel (doc. 63), since Plaintiff represented that there had been no

supplemental responses when they filed their updated motion (doc. 75), and ruled on

only those requests for documents set forth in Plaintiff’s updated motion.5

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 8 of 21
Page 9 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

Interrogatory No. 3 (Jenkins to City): GRANTED. City shall respond more fully

and describe their version of the incident, including the actions they contend were taken

to prevent harm to the Plaintiff. 

Interrogatory No. 4: GRANTED. Plaintiff asks for the facts the City contends

support its affirmative defenses. She is not asking for legal theory or mental

impressions, she specifically asks for facts, and not facts to support her claims, the facts

to support the City’s defenses. 

Interrogatory No. 6: GRANTED. If the City knows which officers were at the

scene, it shall identify them and cannot evade its duty to respond to proper

interrogatories by referring a party to other sources for the information.

Interrogatory No. 7: GRANTED. While it appears that Plaintiff may have this

information by this time, the interrogatory was properly phrased and the City’s objection

that it was vague is not well taken, and the question should be answered completely.

Interrogatory No. 8: DENIED. The interrogatory is overbroad in that it asks for

any statement, written or otherwise, and any remark made by anyone about this lawsuit. 

Defendants have provided written statements from Plaintiff, officers at the scene, and

statements taken in conjunction with an investigation. This is sufficient.

Interrogatory No. 10: DENIED. This interrogatory is vague and overbroad. 

Defendants contend that they have produced their retention policies, and identified all

documents pertaining to the incident on June 27, 2003, at Jenkins’ residence. The

remainder of the information sought by this interrogatory, such as content of personnel

files, disciplinary files, and training files, is overbroad and vague. Plaintiff does not ask

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 9 of 21
Page 10 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

for the files of anyone in particular just any files that relate “to the incidents and issues

on which the Complaint is based.” This is too vague for a response.

Interrogatory No. 2 (Jenkins to Perry): DENIED. This information is protected by

statute because of Perry’s status as a law enforcement officer, and Plaintiff has failed to

show the relevance of this information to the purposes alleged, e.g. to show a

propensity for abusing citizens or lack of diligence by the City in screening him. If

Plaintiff is trying to establish a violent background, which the City failed to detect in its

screening process, then Plaintiff needs to tailor its search for this information more

narrowly. 

Interrogatory No. 4: GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to Officer Perry’s version of

the incident at issue.

Interrogatory No. 7: GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to Officer Perry’s version of

the phone call and the conversations surrounding that phone call.

Interrogatory No. 10: DENIED. Perry has responded that he did not know a car

was searched on the premises that day, and therefore, can supply no facts or evidence

supporting probable cause for such a search. This is a sufficient response to the

interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 11: DENIED. Perry has responded that all disciplinary actions

he received were in his personnel file, which has been produced, and in his response to

the motion to compel further explains that there were no disciplinary actions purged

from his file, as Plaintiff feared, rather his file contained ALL his disciplinary actions

regardless of their time frame, even though according to the department’s purge policy

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 10 of 21
Page 11 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

described by Carol Hendrix at her deposition, some of the actions in his file were

actually outside the time frame and could have been purged.

Interrogatory No. 12: GRANTED. If Perry has made false statements, etc., as

described in the interrogatory, he shall identify such instances and where he was

disciplined for these actions he shall identify the particulars about the actions for which

he was disciplined.

Interrogatory No. 13: GRANTED IN PART. This is a straightforward question,

and Perry shall answer it by identifying those persons whom he knows to have

knowledge about the issues raised in the complaint, and the defenses pled by him, and

the substance of the person’s knowledge, but he is not required to link each witnesses’

knowledge to the particular defense. This information invades the mental impressions

and strategy of counsel making it work product. 

Interrogatory No. 14: GRANTED. Perry shall identify each person who was

present at the incident of June 27, 2003. There are no other incidents of which the

Court is aware nor has Plaintiff argued that there is more than one incident.

Interrogatory No. 1 (Wooden to Perry): DENIED. Perry has identified who his

direct supervisor was and described the chain of command over him which did not

include Chief McNeil. Plaintiff insists on “evidence” of this chain of command. If Plaintiff

wants a policy manual or some document setting forth the chain of command for police

officers like Perry, he should ask for this document pursuant to Rule 34, Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Otherwise, the interrogatory has been answered.

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 11 of 21
Page 12 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

Interrogatory No. 5: DENIED. Perry has responded that he will rely on the

testimony of himself, Plaintiff Wooden, and the other officers on the scene to support his

denial of the specific allegations set forth in the interrogatory. This answers the

question asked.

Interrogatory No. 7: DENIED. Again, Perry denies that Plaintiff Jenkins was

naked and will rely upon the incident report and the testimony of himself, other officers,

and the Plaintiffs themselves to support his denial. He has been asked in Interrogatory

No. 4 propounded by Jenkins to describe his version of the incident, he does not need

to repeat himself in response to this interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 8: DENIED. Perry has described what evidence he will rely

upon to support his version of the facts. Plaintiff has propounded several interrogatories

of this type, which are unfamiliar to this Court, but the detail Plaintiff is apparently

seeking, i.e. a fact by fact break down of the evidence Perry will rely upon borders on

seeking the strategy or mental impressions of counsel, which is work product and is not

discoverable absent some additional showing of need. Further, the nature of this

lawsuit is such that the evidence by both parties as to what happened is going to be

primarily their testimony, which will in turn rest on their credibility. Thus, the

Defendant’s response that the evidence will be testimony is entirely reasonable and

predictable. Understandably, Plaintiff will want to learn what each person’s testimony is

likely to be, and that is what depositions are for, not interrogatories.

Interrogatory No. 9: DENIED. See above Interrogatory No. 8.

Interrogatory No. 10: DENIED. See above Interrogatory No. 8.

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 12 of 21
Page 13 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

Interrogatory No. 11: DENIED. See above Interrogatory No. 8. Perry has

already been asked to give his version of the incident.

Interrogatory No. 12: DENIED. See above Interrogatory No. 8. 

Interrogatory No. 13: DENIED. See above Interrogatory No. 8. 

Interrogatory No. 14: DENIED. See above Interrogatory No. 8. 

Interrogatory No. 16: DENIED. See above Interrogatory No. 8. 

Interrogatory No. 17: DENIED. Plaintiff is not entitled to the Defendant’s defense

theory.

Interrogatory No. 18: DENIED. It is improper to ask a party to explain the legal

basis for a defense. 

Interrogatory No. 4 (Jenkins to McNeil): DENIED. Plaintiff asks McNeil to

describe an incident he did not witness nor participate in. Plaintiff’s claims against

McNeil for failure to investigate and failure to train would not be furthered by his

understanding of the incident since his alleged actions or inactions would have occurred

prior to or following the incident.

Interrogatory No. 5: GRANTED IN PART. Because of Chief McNeil’s long tenure

with the Tallahassee Police Department it would be unduly burdensome and irrelevant

to inquire as to the “chain of command up and down” for every position he has held

since 1979. However, McNeil should respond and name the persons in his chain of

command at the time of the incident, June 27, 2003. No other time frame for this

particular information is relevant.

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 13 of 21
Page 14 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

Interrogatory No. 6: DENIED. McNeil has responded sufficiently to the relevant

portions of the interrogatory. There is no use of force claim asserted here and the Court

is not persuaded that discovery about how he treated aggressiveness in this context is

relevant to the facts of this case. Further, his role in the disciplinary process for any

position other than his present role as Chief of Police is not relevant. 

Interrogatory No. 9: DENIED. Irrelevant.

Interrogatory No. 10: DENIED. Irrelevant.

Interrogatory No. 11: DENIED. Irrelevant. Plaintiffs have not alleged that drugs

or weapons were planted on them.

Interrogatory No. 13: DENIED. This type of information is best solicited in a

deposition. The interrogatory is too broad based and vague to elicit an adequate

response, so the Court is not persuaded that the failure of McNeil to respond hampered

further inquiry.

Interrogatory No. 14: DENIED. Again, this type of information is best solicited in

a deposition, which apparently was taken and this question answered. The Court

disagrees that it is not relevant, but again the interrogatory is too broad based to elicit

any meaningful response.

Interrogatory No. 15: DENIED. Again, this type of information is best solicited in

a deposition. Presumably, Plaintiff has obtained a number of disciplinary actions

involving Officer Perry and wants to inquire of Perry and McNeil what transpired with

these incidents. This line of inquiry should take place during their depositions. The

interrogatories are too broadly phrased to elicit any meaningful information.

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 14 of 21
Page 15 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

Interrogatory No. 16: GRANTED. McNeil should answer this question and offer

his opinion of any set of circumstances when officers might interrogate a female naked,

if he can think of any such circumstances.

Interrogatory No. 17: GRANTED IN PART. McNeil should identify the persons

with knowledge of the claims and defenses raised in this lawsuit and the substance of

their knowledge, but he is not required to link each witnesses knowledge to the

particular defense. This information invades the mental impressions and strategy of

counsel making it work product.

Interrogatory No. 18: DENIED. Overbroad. McNeil has responded with his

knowledge about written statements which is sufficient.

Interrogatory No. 1 (Wooden to McNeil): DENIED. McNeil’s denial that he does

not supervise Officer Perry is sufficient. 

Interrogatory No. 3: DENIED. See Interrogatory No. 8, p. 11 above.

Interrogatory No. 4: DENIED. See Interrogatory No. 8, p. 11 above. Also,

McNeil was not present at the incident; therefore, he cannot describe it.

Interrogatory No. 5: DENIED. It is not proper to ask a party to provide legal

bases for his defenses.

Interrogatory No. 7: DENIED. See Interrogatory No. 8, p. 11 above. 

Interrogatory No. 8: DENIED. See Interrogatory No. 8, p. 11 above. 

Interrogatory No. 9: DENIED. See Interrogatory No. 8, p. 11 above. 

Interrogatory No. 10: DENIED. This type of information is best solicited in a

deposition. 

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 15 of 21
Page 16 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

Interrogatory No. 11: DENIED. The interrogatory is overbroad as written. If

Plaintiff wants to know what the procedures are for detaining persons in a home with

other persons being arrested, the interrogatory should have been phrased more

narrowly. Instead, Plaintiff asks for the “considerations” when faced with this type of

situation which encompasses too much information and too many variables not

identified in the question. This type of information would best be solicited in a

deposition.

Interrogatory No. 12: DENIED. It is improper to ask a party to define a legal

term.

Interrogatory No. 13: DENIED. The way the interrogatory is phrased it calls for

McNeil to define a legal term. 

Interrogatory No. 15: GRANTED. McNeil should answer whether an officer who

does not complete training on a police procedure is subject to discipline for violating that

procedure.

Interrogatory No. 17: GRANTED. Although it appears that McNeil may have

answered this question, he shall be more responsive, if possible, without posing

objections.

Interrogatory No. 18: DENIED. Irrelevant. There are no allegations in this lawsuit

that any of the Defendants collected drug paraphernalia.

Interrogatory No. 19: DENIED. There are no allegations in this lawsuit that any

of the Defendants falsely claimed to have received training.

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 16 of 21
Page 17 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

Request for Documents No. 4 (Jenkins to City): DENIED. The request is vague

and Plaintiff is not entitled to inspect non-specified “files that might contain materials.”

Defendants have produced their General Orders Manual and training documents, which

they assert are responsive to the request.

Request No. 5: GRANTED. Although Defendants represent that they have

produced training notes from each officers personnel file, they do not address whether

they have books, booklets, CD’s, DVD’s, or videotapes regarding the training issues of

probable cause, arrest, false arrest and imprisonment, and if they have these items,

they are relevant and shall be produced. 

Request No. 8: DENIED, based on Defendants’ representations that they have

produced documents compliant with this request. Plaintiff did not file a reply refuting

any of these representations. 

Request No. 9: DENIED, based on Defendants’ representations that they have

produced documents compliant with this request. Plaintiff did not file a reply refuting

any of these representations. Plaintiff’s updated motion to compel these items was

based on their failure to be produced, and she has not adequately briefed the issue of

subsequent remedial measures for the Court to rule on this aspect of the discoverability

of these documents. 

Request No. 10: DENIED. Plaintiff has not adequately explained the relevancy of

the use of force documents to persuade this Court to compel their production, and Perry

has already explained that there were no documents purged from his file.

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 17 of 21
Page 18 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

Request No. 11: GRANTED IN PART, insofar as the Court is aware Defendant

Perry is the only officer to explain that none of his disciplinary reports were purged,

despite the purge policy described by Carol Hendrix at her deposition. It is not clear

whether this same representation holds true for Officer Rowell and Defendant shall

make this clear in a supplemental response addressing whether disciplinary reports

were purged from Rowell’s file or they were included in the production.

Request No. 12: GRANTED IN PART, insofar as the Court is aware Defendant

Perry is the only officer to explain that none of his disciplinary reports were purged

despite the purge policy described by Carol Hendrix at her deposition. It is not clear

whether this same representation holds true for Officer Lowery and Defendant shall

make this clear in a supplemental response addressing whether disciplinary reports

were purged from Lowery’s file or they were included in the production.

Request No. 14: DENIED. Defendants represent that they have produced tapes

of interviews concerning the incident at issue, and Plaintiff’s request, as it concerns

other complaints, is irrelevant and overbroad.

Request No. 5 (Wooden to City): DENIED. Defendants represent that they have

produced all documents previously objected to, with the exception of “Use of Force”

logs, which again is not an issue in this lawsuit and is not relevant.

Request No. 11: DENIED. Defendants represent that they have now fully

complied with this request.

Request No. 2 (Jenkins to Perry): DENIED. Overbroad. 

Request No. 10: DENIED. Overbroad.

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 18 of 21
Page 19 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

Request No. 12: DENIED. Defendants represent that they have produced a

privilege log.

Request No. 1 (Wooden to Perry): DENIED. Defendant represents that all

documents responsive to this request have been produced.

Request No. 6: DENIED. Defendant represents that all documents responsive

to this request have been produced.

Request No. 7: DENIED. Defendant represents that all documents responsive

to this request have been produced.

Request No. 8: DENIED. Defendant represents that all documents responsive

to this request have been produced.

Request No. 3 (Jenkins to McNeil): DENIED. Overbroad. Further, Defendant

represents that all documents responsive to this request have been produced.

Request No. 5: DENIED. Overbroad. Further, Defendant represents that all

documents responsive to this request have been produced.

Request No. 7: DENIED. Overbroad. Further, Defendant represents that all

documents responsive to this request have been produced.

Request No. 1 (Wooden to McNeil): DENIED. Defendant represents that all

documents responsive to this request have been produced.

Request No. 5: DENIED. McNeil has already provided Plaintiff with his job

positions with the Tallahassee Police Department since 1979.

Request No. 6: DENIED. Irrelevant.

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 19 of 21
Page 20 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

Attorneys Fees

The Court finds that both parties were substantially justified in taking their positions

with regard to filing the discovery motions and in opposing them, and since both parties

were partially successfully in approximately equal measures in taking their positions,

neither party should be awarded fees and expenses with regard to their motions. 

Status Report

The parties have sought and been granted a stay of the Court’s ruling on their

pending dispositive motions until such time as this Court resolves their discovery issues.

(Doc. 119). The parties shall now confer and decide what discovery remains to be taken

as a result of this decision, how long such discovery might take, what other deadlines might

be affected, and how this additional discovery will affect the pending motions, such as

whether some or all of the motions will be withdrawn in whole or in part or whether they be

supplemented, and if supplemented, when that can be accomplished. The present trial

date is June 19, 2006, and all proposed deadlines shall be made with that consideration

in mind, since there has been no request by either party to reschedule the trial again. After

this conferral, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report detailing all the above concerns

and requesting what extensions of time they need accordingly.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. Defendant City of Tallahassee’s Motion to Compel (doc. 59) is GRANTED IN

PART, in that Plaintiff shall on or before April 10, 2006, respond fully and completely to

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 20 of 21
Page 21 of 21

No. 4:03cv208-spm/ak

Interrogatory No. 11, and she shall provide forthwith any medical records from Dr. Snapp

not heretofore produced. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. 

2. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Elaine Harper’s Deposition Testimony (doc. 61)

is GRANTED IN PART, in that she is hereby compelled to respond to questions about the

letter written to Chief McNeil, her sworn statement, and her personal knowledge of the facts

related to the claims raised in this complaint. The particulars of resuming her deposition,

if that is the manner in which Defendants wish to obtain this information, shall be addressed

in the Status Report. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc. 75) is GRANTED IN PART, as set forth above.

Where additional supplementation or production has been granted, Defendant shall so

respond on or before April 10, 2006.

4. The parties shall confer and submit a Status Report in the detail set forth above

on or before April 14, 2006. 

DONE AND ORDERED at Gainesville, Florida, this 30th day of March, 2006.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:03-cv-00208-SPM-AK Document 132 Filed 03/30/06 Page 21 of 21