UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

DAVID MARSHALL, III and LAMISA )

MARSHALL, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:14-cv-50-TLS

)

TOWN OF MERRILLVILLE, OFFICER )

ALLISON ELLIS, individually and in her official )

capacity, and OFFICER TIMOTHY FINNERTY, ) 

individually and in his official capacity, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 15], 

filed on July 2, 2013, Second Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 21], filed on December 8, 2014, 

Third Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 24], filed on December 9, 2014, Fourth Motion for 

Sanctions [ECF No. 27], filed on December 18, 2014, Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney 

Lisa Baron [ECF No. 40], filed on February 6, 2015, and Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney 

Elizabeth Knight [ECF No. 41], filed on February 6, 2015. The Plaintiffs request the Court to 

enter sanctions of default judgment and monetary sanctions against the Defendants for failure to 

comply with discovery requests. 

On February 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order [ECF No. 46] referring this case to 

Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry to review the motions and briefing as to the sanction requests

and to issue a report and recommendation on the same, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local 

Rule 72-1. On March 18, 2015, Judge Cherry filed his Findings, Report, and Recommendation 

[ECF No. 52] in which he recommended that the Court deny the Plaintiffs’ Motions for 
2

Sanctions but also issue an order requiring the Defendants to provide complete discovery 

responses where he found their current responses to be deficient. The Plaintiffs filed Objections 

to the Findings and Report of United State Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 53] on March 31, 2015. 

The Plaintiffs’ Motions for Sanctions and objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Report, 

and Recommendation are ripe for ruling. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In accordance with the Federal Magistrate’s Act, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and Local Rule 72-1, a judge may designate a magistrate 

judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, including dispositive 

motions, and the magistrate judge must enter a recommended disposition, including any 

proposed findings of fact. The parties then have fourteen days after being served with a copy of 

the recommended disposition to file written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected 

to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Harlyn Sales Corp. Profit Sharing 

Plan v. Kemper Fin. Servs., 9 F.3d 1263, 1266 (7th Cir. 1993). The district judge must look at all 

the evidence contained in the record and may accept, reject, or modify the recommended 

disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Harlyn, 9 F.3d at 1266.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Officer Ellis and Officer Finnerty kicked them out of 

their daughter’s high school graduation ceremony and thereby are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 
3

for violating their constitutional right to peaceably assemble as well as for the state-law tort of 

intentional infliction of emotional distress. They also allege that this incident is part of a larger 

pattern and that the Town of Merrillville is liable for improper hiring and retention.

Although the motions before the Court deal with various discovery disputes, they share 

the central contention that the Town and its attorneys have failed to provide complete discovery 

and have engaged in an elaborate hide-the-ball game in an effort to undermine the Plaintiffs’

case. The Plaintiffs ask for monetary sanctions against the Town and its attorneys, Lisa Baron 

and Elizabeth Knight, as well as an entry of default judgment against all Defendants. 

The Court has reviewed the entire record of this case, including the various motions with 

accompanying briefing, the Magistrate Judge’s 13-page Report and Recommendation, and the 

Plaintiffs’ objections to that Report and Recommendation. Having made a de novo review of the 

arguments presented by the parties, the Court agrees with and adopts as its own the findings and 

analysis of the Magistrate Judge, which are now incorporated by reference as part of this Order.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ Objections to 

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 53], ADOPTS the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 52], and DENIES the Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Discovery Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees Against the Town of Merrillville [ECF No. 15],

Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees Against the Town of Merrillville 

[ECF No. 21], Third Motion for Discovery Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees Against the Town of 

Merrillville [ECF No. 24], Fourth Motion for Discovery Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees Against 

the Town of Merrillville [ECF No. 27], Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney Lisa Baron [ECF 
4

No. 40], and Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney Elizabeth Knight [ECF No. 41]. The Court 

ORDERS the Defendants to serve the Plaintiffs with all nonprivileged documents in its control, 

including those in the custody of its former attorney, sought by the Plaintiffs in their Third 

Request for Production and to provide a complete response to the Plaintiffs’ July 1, 2014, 

interrogatory, which asked for a list and summary of all civil rights suits involving the Town 

since 2009, all within 30 days from the date of this Order. 

SO ORDERED on July 13, 2015.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann .

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION