Th e pa pe rs su bmi tte d in

c onne c tio n w iththi s matte r i nc lud e : Pla int if fs ’ 1 Objections to the Mag istrate Judge’ s Memorandum Opinion and O rder of Nove mber 25, 2008; Def endant District of

Columbi a’s Response to the Plaintiffs’ Objections; Response to the Pla int if fs ’ O bje c tio ns by

De fe nd ants Antho ny

Cla y and Jame s H a sk e l; a

nd Pla int if fs ’ R e ply to the Def endants’ Re sponses. UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT

F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

____________________________________ ) CHARL ES RAW L I

NGS, e t al

. , ) ) Pla int if fs , )

) v. ) Ci vi l A cti on No. 07 -19 14 (P L F) ) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA, e t al

. , ) ) De fe nd ants
. ) ____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON AND ORDER This matter is befor e the Court on the plaintiffs’ objections to the opinion and order of Nove mber 25, 2008 issued by Mag istrate Judge A lan Kay , to whom this case wa s
r e f e r r e d f o r th e m an a g e m e n to f

d i s c o v e r y. In th ato p i n i o nan d

o r d e r , M a g i s tr at e J u d g e K ay 1 (1 ) d e nie d w ith out pr e

jud ic e the pla int if

fs ’ m oti on

to c omp e l th e Di str ic t of Col umb ia

to d isc los e
an unre dacte d copy

of the fina l Forc e Investig ation Team Report (“F I T Report”) perta ining to the shooting at issue in this case ; (2) denie d the plaintiffs’ motion for a defa ult judgment or othe r
sanc tio ns to r e me dy

a lle g e d d isc ov e ry

vio latio ns by

the de fe nd ants ; and

(3 ) gra nte d th e pla int if

fs ’ mot ion to c omp e l th e Di str ic t of Col umb ia

to p e rm it i ns pe c tio n o f p hy sic a l e vid e nc e . M a g istrate J udg e Ka y also conc luded that the depositions of Serg eant Wax and Office r Clay should beAt Serg eant Wax’s deposition, which occurr ed on Oc tober 23, 2008, the pla intiffs 2 too k e xce pti on

to t he Di str ic t of

Col umb ia ’s re fu sa l to pe rm it Se rg e ant Wax to ans we r c e rt a in questions about the FI T Report and his par ticipation in the underlying inve stigation. The pla int if fs the re fo re fi le d a

se c on d mo tio n to c omp e l and fo r s anc tio ns , th is t ime se e kin gto compel the District of

Columbi a to allow Serg eant Wax to answer questions about such matters. See Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel (Dec . 11, 2008).

Be cause the par

ties’ disputes about the prope r scope of Serg eant Wax’s deposition testimony cente red on the ir conflictinginterpre tations of Rule 6(e) of the F eder al Rules of Criminal Procedure , and bec ause the District of Columbia had moved bef ore Chief J udg e Roy ce L amber th for an or der pe rmitting it to discover a nd disclose matters c overe d by Rule 6(e) , Mag istrate Judge K ay

defe rre d consideration of the plaintiffs’ sec ond motion to compel pending Chief J udg e L amber

th’s ruling . Chief J udg e L amber th issued his ruling on June 10, 2009, and an un se a le d c op y

of that r uli ng , r e da c te d b y

Chi e f Jud g e L ambe rt

h, wa s f ile d o n th e do c ke t of

thi s case by the District of Columbia on August 5, 2009. Chief J udg e L amber th’s ruling on the socalled “ Rule 6(e) issue” lar g ely resolved the parties’ disputes about Serg eant Wax’s deposition te sti mony and oth e r m atte rs ra ise d b y

the pla int if

fs ’ s e c on d mo tio n to c omp e l. T hu s, on Au g us t 6, 20 09 , M a g istrate Judg e Ka y iss ue d a n o pin ion and or de r d e nyinga s mo ot t

he pla int if

fs ’ second motion to compel. See Raw lings v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 07-1914, Memorandum Opinion and O rder at 1-2 (D .D.C. Aug . 6, 2009) (Ka y , M.J .). 2 completed a s soon as possible. The plaintiffs now a sk this C ourt to modify or set aside ever

y 2

a sp e c t of Ma g istra te Judg e Ka

y ’s No ve mbe r 2 5, 20 08 de c isi on on the g ro un d th at it

is “ c le arl y
err oneous or c ontrary

to law.” L O CA L C IV . R. 72 .2 (c ); se e a lso F ED . R. C IV . P. 72(a)
. Many of the plaintiffs’ objections to the Novembe r 25, 2008 dec ision are now moot. Pl aintiffs’ objec tions related to the F I T Report and to Serg eant Wax’s deposition testimony are moot by

virtue of Chief Judge L amber th’s decision of June 10, 2009, see su pra note 2, which a ddresse s the extent to which Rule 6(e) of the Fe dera l Rules of Criminal P roce dure applies to both. See Notice of F iling of Unseale d Orde r De nying the District of Columbia’s Motion for an Or der Authorizi ngthe Disclosure of Gra nd J ury Materia l, Ex . 1, In re G rand Jury Investig ation, Miscellaneous N o. 09-0039, Memora ndum Order

(D.D.C. June 10, 2009) (L ambe rt h, C.J.) . B e c a

us e Chi e f Jud g e L ambe rt

h’ s d e c isi on

a lso a dd re sse s w he the r c e rt a in3

photogr aphs may

be disclosed – a

nd beca use the District of Columbia cla ims that the plaintiffs have inspe cted a ll other evidenc e in its possession – the Court assumes that any rema ining complaints the plaintiffs may have ha d related to acc ess to phy sical evide nce a re moot as we ll. As for the rema inder of the plaintiffs’ objec tions, the Court concludes that they do not warr ant modifying or setting a side any

part of Ma g istrate Judge K ay ’s Novembe r 25, 2008 opinion and order . The Court under stands that the plaintiffs ar e fr ustrated with the pa ce of discovery in this case. Ne verthe less, the Court cannot c onclude that Ma g istrate Judge K ay acte d
err oneously

or in a manne r contra

ry to law when he conclude d that the depositions of Serg eant Wax and Of fi c e r C lay sh ou ld b e c omp le te d a s so on a s p os sib le or

wh e n h e de nie d th e pla int if fs ’ motion for a def

ault judgme nt or other sa

nctions. Acc ording ly , it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objec tions to t he Mag istrate Judge’ s Memorandum Opinion and Orde r of Nove mber 25, 2008 [41] are DENI ED as moot in part a nd DENI ED on the merits in part. F or the re asons stated a bove, the Court dec lines to modify or set aside any

aspec t of Ma g istrate Judg e Ka

y ’s No ve mbe r 2 5, 20 08 op ini on and or de r; and

it i s F UR TH ER O RD ERE D that, o n o r b e fo re Au g us t 31 , 2 00 9, the pa rt ie s sh a ll m e e t, confe r and f

ile a joint report infor

ming the Court a s to what discover y disputes remain to be d e c i d e d , w h e th e r

b y th e un d e r s i g n e d

o r b y M a g i s tr at e J u d g e K ay. SO ORDERED. /s/_______________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN DA T E : Au gu s t1 7 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge