Opinion ID: 2740889
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ware’s Remaining Arguments

Text: Ware’s remaining claims of pre-trial and trial error lack merit as well. Ware argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment, but a party cannot challenge the denial of summary judgment after a trial on the merits because the denial of summary judgment remains interlocutory and the trial record supersedes the summary judgment record. See Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, ___, 131 S. Ct. 884, 88889 (2011). Ware also raises various challenges to the District Court’s exercise of discretion over matters of discovery and evidence. He argues, for example, that the District Court abused its discretion in quashing subpoenas he served on the City of Wilmington and that its ruling effectively prevented him from obtaining any discovery regarding Riley and 5 Ware faults the District Court for failing to apply the Graham factors, but, as just discussed, it was not necessary for the District Court to do so in light of its finding that Riley did not use force in the first place. Ware also faults the District Court’s reliance on the lack of a physical injury and medical treatment, but the District Court did not err in seeking some objective corroboration of Ware’s claim. Ware argues that defendants laid no foundation for Riley’s testimony that use of force generally triggers an investigation, but Riley clearly was testifying from his own experience as a police officer. Ware also argues that the District Court imposed an administrative exhaustion requirement on this claim by relying on the fact that he did not file a written complaint with the police department, but the District Court instead merely found the lack of such a complaint relevant to Ware’s claim on the merits. The District Court also entered judgment against Ware on his related supplemental claim of assault under state law, but Ware has not challenged that ruling on appeal and we deem the supplemental claim waived. 10 Pfaff. Ware is mistaken. On December 22, 2011, the District Court entered an order quashing Ware’s third-party subpoenas on the grounds that he could seek the discovery requested therein from Riley and Pfaff themselves and that, if relevant information proved not to be under their control, he could serve a third-party subpoena in the future. (ECF Nos. 21 & 22.) The District Court also extended the discovery deadline for over four months. Ware concedes both that he did not serve written discovery on Riley or Pfaff (or anyone else) within that time and that he did not do so because he misunderstood the deadline’s significance. The District Court nevertheless permitted him to depose both Riley and Pfaff after the deadline. Ware also argues that the District Court abused its discretion in quashing discovery and trial subpoenas he served on his landlord, Howard Sudler. Ware does not state what information or testimony he sought from Sudler or how it would have been relevant to his claims, however, and we discern no conceivable relevance because Sudler did not witness the incident in question and the District Court’s rulings did not turn on any factual dispute as to which he could have testified. Ware also faults the District Court’s rulings regarding his alleged video recording of the incident. During Ware’s deposition, he testified that he had a video recording of the incident because he heard the officers coming and set up a camera phone to record the encounter before they entered his bedroom. Ware later claimed that he could not retrieve the recording because his phone is inoperable. After Ware refused to produce a copy of 11 the recording or his phone for inspection, defendants filed a motion to dismiss his complaint as a sanction. The District Court denied that motion, but it later entered an order providing that “[h]aving failed to produce the alleged video recording during discovery, plaintiff shall not be permitted to refer to it or otherwise use it at trial.” (ECF No. 73.) Ware abided by that order during his direct testimony. On cross-examination, the District Court permitted defense counsel (over Ware’s objection) to impeach him with his deposition testimony that he got out of bed to activate the camera phone because he heard the officers coming but then remained naked and got back into bed instead of taking that opportunity to clothe himself. (ECF No. 94, N.T. 11/20/13, at 113-17.) Ware argues that it was unfairly prejudicial for the District Court to preclude him from offering evidence of the recording but then to permit defendants to impeach him with his testimony that he had activated a camera phone. We disagree. The District Court acted well within its discretion in precluding Ware from introducing evidence of the alleged recording, and the District Court did so to protect the defendants in light of Ware’s discovery violations, not to limit their ability to impeach him. The final issue we address is Ware’s argument that the District Court erred in its treatment of his four witnesses—i.e., Isaac Vaughn, Christopher Brown, Officer Gula, and Naasih Faheen. Ware argues that the District Court failed to mention the testimony of Vaughn, Brown and Faheen, but we have reviewed these witnesses’ testimony (ECF 12 No. 94, N.T. 11/20/13, at 20-46, 64-83) and it was unnecessary for the District Court to refer to it because they did not witness the incident in question and their testimony was not directly relevant to any of the issues discussed above. Ware also argues that the District Court should have disregarded Officer Gula’s testimony that he did not recall the incident and should have found instead that Gula guarded the front door while Riley and Pfaff questioned Ware in his room. But Ware neither specifies the significance of that alleged fact nor cites any record evidence making the District Court’s acceptance of Gula’s testimony clearly erroneous, and we have found none. Ware’s remaining arguments suffer from similar deficiencies and, having reviewed all of them in light of the record, we conclude that they do not require further discussion. III. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Ware’s motion to file an untimely and overlength brief is granted.6 6 Ware, who is a relatively sophisticated litigant by pro se standards, obtained an extension of time to file his opening brief but then submitted it twelve days after the extended deadline. We do not condone that delay or the fact that Ware has not even attempted to explain it. In this instance, however, we exercise our discretion to decide this appeal on the merits because defendants did not file a motion to dismiss the appeal in lieu of their brief on the merits and the appeal is now fully briefed. 13