1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

KEITH CRABBS, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-1126 

 Judge Watson 

 Magistrate Judge King 

SHERIFF ZACH SCOTT, et al., 

 Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This is a civil rights action in which plaintiff alleges that, 

after his acquittal on a criminal charge, he was unlawfully detained 

and his DNA was forcibly collected and recorded in state and national 

databases in contravention of his rights under the Fourth and Fifth 

Amendments.1

 Named as defendants are officials of the Franklin County 

Sheriff’s Department (“the County Defendants”), the Ohio Attorney 

General and the Superintendent of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal 

Investigation and Identification. 

 The case was initiated with the filing of the Complaint, ECF 1,

on December 6, 2012. On April 3, 2013, the Court established a 

discovery completion date of December 1, 2013. Preliminary Pretrial 

Order, ECF 30, PageID# 179. Motions for summary judgment, ECF 68, 79, 

89, are fully briefed and awaiting resolution. This matter is now 

before the Court on plaintiff’s Second Motion for Order to Set Status 

 

1 Plaintiff no longer pursues a First Amendment retaliation claim. Memorandum 

of Plaintiff in Opposition to Defendants Zach Scott, Mark Barrett and Gregory 

Goodrich’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 91, PageID# 920. 

Case: 2:12-cv-01126-MHW-NMK Doc #: 101 Filed: 08/11/14 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Conference and Order Reopening Discovery, ECF 98 (“Motion to Reopen 

Discovery”). The County defendants oppose the motion. Response in 

Opposition, ECF 99. 

 Plaintiff asks to reopen discovery to permit inquiry into two 

areas: (1) the “operation and coordination of [the Automatic License 

Plate Reader] data regarding license plate information on vehicles 

owned by Plaintiff and his family between Defendants’ office and the 

law enforcement agencies involved in the stops” and (2) the “exchange 

of information between Defendant’s office and the law enforcement 

agencies regarding Mr. Crabb’s identity and the identification of 

vehicles he is known to drive.” Motion to Reopen Discovery, PageID# 

972. Plaintiff asserts that he has been the subject of “intimidation 

and retaliation . . . because he has prosecuted this suit.” Id., at 

PageID# 966. He contends that the requested discovery will permit him 

“to establish a party-opponent admission, pursuant to Evid. R. 

801(d)(2), that [County] Defendants Scott and Barrett acted 

unconstitutionally in detaining Plaintiff and seizing his DNA.” Id.

at PageID# 967. In support of the request, plaintiff lists a number 

of traffic stops, by a number of law enforcement officials, between 

March 6, 2013 and August 30, 2013. Id. at PageID# 969-71.

 Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the 

modification of a scheduling order “only for good cause and with the 

judge’s consent.” Rule 16(b)(4). A court considering a request to 

modify the schedule may do so only “‘if it cannot reasonably be met 

despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Leary v. 

Daeschner, 349 F.3d 888, 906 (6th Cir. 2003)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case: 2:12-cv-01126-MHW-NMK Doc #: 101 Filed: 08/11/14 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

16, 1983 Advisory Committee Notes). “Another important consideration 

for a district court deciding whether Rule 16's ‘good cause’ standard 

is met is whether the opposing party will suffer prejudice by virtue 

of the amendment.” Id. (citing Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 

625 (6th Cir. 2002)). The “overarching inquiry,” however, “is whether 

the moving party was diligent in pursuing discovery.” Dowling v. 

Cleveland Clinic Found., 593 F. 3d 472, 478 (6th Cir. 2010). 

 The alleged incidents of claimed intimidation and retaliation 

occurred substantially before the discovery completion date in this 

case, yet plaintiff does not explain why the discovery now sought in 

connection with these incidents was not undertaken during the 

discovery period. Plaintiff has therefore failed to establish that he 

was diligent in pursuing the requested discovery. It follows that 

plaintiff has not established good cause for modifying the pretrial 

schedule in this case. 

 Accordingly, plaintiff’s Second Motion for Order to Set Status 

Conference and Order Reopening Discovery, ECF 98, is DENIED. 

 

August 11, 2014 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-01126-MHW-NMK Doc #: 101 Filed: 08/11/14 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>