Barnes v. District of Columbia
289 F.R.D. 1
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- This case concerns DOC overdetentions and strip searches of inmates, a class action filed Feb. 23, 2006 in the D.D.C.
- The Court previously held liability limited to periods tied to the 10 p.m. cut-off rule and certain dates; other periods unresolved pending trial.
- In Dec. 2011 the Court ordered limited discovery to determine how many overdetentions occurred during the Trial Period (Jan 1, 2007–Feb 25, 2008).
- Between Jan–June 2012 the District sought to compel responses and the Plaintiffs supplemented expert reports on overdetentions during the Trial Period.
- The District moved to strike those supplemental reports; Plaintiffs moved to compel production of the Release Discrepancy Database and related data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Interrogatories 1 and 2 require updated figures excluding 10 p.m. overdetentions | Barnes argued overall Trial Period overdetentions and 10 p.m. overdetentions should be counted separately | District argued the counts must exclude 10 p.m. overdetentions as per the Court’s order | Denied in part; Court allowed supplemental answers but denied Strike as to these interrogatories |
| Whether Interrogatory 13 regarding witness identification requires detailed fact-by-fact testimony | Plaintiffs claimed to supplement later; sought full list of facts each witness would testify to | District argued overly burdensome and improper to disclose every fact | Plaintiffs must provide narrative summary of expected testimony consistent with prior rulings (not indefinitely granular) |
| Whether supplemental expert reports can be struck or require rebuttal designation | Reports filed per Court order should stand; potential need for rebuttal if changes are substantial | Substantial changes require potential rebuttal designation | Not struck; district may depose experts; no automatic rebuttal designation required due to Court-ordered supplements |
| Whether the District must produce the Release Discrepancy Database and underlying data | Alpha and related data necessary to verify Discrepancy Reports; the query must be produced | Data production beyond Trial Period unnecessary; incomplete production already provided | Partial grant: must produce the trial-period query; Alpha production denied but may seek missing data after proper analysis; overall discovery reopened for 28 days for depositions |
| Whether to extend discovery for rebuttal experts or additional time | Additional time needed for depositions of Kriegler and Day | No good cause to extend beyond 28 days; near the close of discovery | Denied for full 74 days; open discovery for 28 days to depose plaintiffs’ experts |
| Whether to grant or deny motions to strike the expert reports and related relief | Strike would prejudice plaintiffs; reports were timely filed | Reports altered the case; strikable as late-disclosed | Denied to strike; allowed deposition to address concerns; no extension to designate rebuttal experts |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. District of Columbia, 793 F. Supp. 2d 260 (D.D.C. 2011) (background; liability rulings and discovery orders in this case)
- Barnes v. District of Columbia, 281 F.R.D. 53 (D.D.C. 2012) (April 3, 2012 discovery opinion; sequencing of interrogatories)
- Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst, 231 F.R.D. 3 (D.D.C. 2005) (limits on supplemental expert reports; Rule 26(e))
- Hubbard v. Potter, 247 F.R.D. 27 (D.D.C. 2008) (allowing supplemental deposition in lieu of striking reports)
- Lurie v. MAPMG, 262 F.R.D. 29 (D.D.C. 2009) (motion to compel post-discovery deadlines; post-discovery motions)
- Dormu v. District of Columbia, 795 F. Supp. 2d 2 (D.D.C. 2011) (dealing with expert reports and depositions; discretion to minimize prejudice)
- Beale v. District of Columbia, 545 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2008) (court’s discretion in discovery and schedule management)