Bradley v. The City of Columbus, 2:24-cv-03118

The case arises from a shooting involving Plaintiffs Jalen Bradley and Ja-Dawn Bradley on May 6, 2023, during which both were shot initially by alleged gang members and subsequently by City of Columbus police officers.
Plaintiffs allege constitutional violations (Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments), as well as state law claims and violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988, seeking damages against the City and individual officers.
The current decision follows a discovery dispute after Defendants requested Plaintiffs’ cell phone records for the period surrounding the shooting and substantive responses to recently served discovery related to the factual basis for Monell claims.
Plaintiffs objected to both requests, calling them overly broad, unduly burdensome, or premature due to an upcoming Second Amended Complaint.
Defendants filed a Motion to Compel, arguing relevance and necessity for the case, which is now before the Court for resolution.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Compelling authorizations for Plaintiffs’ cell phone records (May 5-6, 2023)	Invasion of privacy; records possibly privileged; constitutional violation; overbroad	Records relevant to claims/defenses; only metadata sought; discovery tool	Motion to Compel GRANTED; records must be produced
Proportionality of discovery regarding cell phone records	Search without warrant or consent; disproportionate to needs; sensitive/private info	Narrow request (limited time); only metadata; critical for identifying witnesses	Court finds request proportional and not unduly burdensome
Compelling Plaintiff responses to July 2, 2025 discovery (re: Monell claim basis)	Requests are premature because Second Amended Complaint is due soon	First Amended Complaint remains operative; need for timely discovery	Objection rejected; substantive responses required by set deadline
Timing and delay in discovery compliance	Delay justified by pending amendment; no prejudice to Defendants	Delay prejudicial due to upcoming depositions/discovery deadlines	No extension granted; failure to comply risks sanctions

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (discovery is not limited to issues raised in the pleadings and is intended to clarify the issues)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of a policy or custom)
John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2008) (discussing scope and limits of compelled discovery of electronic information)