Porter v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government, 3:12-cv-00829

Kerry Porter sued Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government and the City of Louisville alleging, inter alia, negligent supervision (state law) and a Monell § 1983 claim; defendants moved for summary judgment.
On May 2, 2017 the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims except Count VIII (negligent supervision); the Court had granted Monell dismissal because Defendants presented unrefuted evidence of training and a written exculpatory-evidence policy.
Defendants moved for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), arguing Porter waived the negligent-supervision claim by not responding and that Monell arguments support summary judgment on negligent supervision.
The Court recognized error in its earlier analysis: Porter had failed to respond to defendants’ summary-judgment argument on negligent supervision, thereby waiving it.
On the merits, the Court held Porter’s expert opinions and proposed additional policies amounted to hindsight; Porter did not show Defendants knew or should have known their policies created a foreseeable risk of wrongful conviction or that additional supervision would likely have changed the outcome.
The Court granted reconsideration and entered summary judgment for Defendants on Count VIII (negligent supervision).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of negligent supervision claim	Porter failed to respond to defendants’ summary-judgment argument but the claim should proceed	Defendants argued Porter waived the claim by not addressing it in his response	Court: Porter waived the negligent-supervision claim by failing to respond
Sufficiency of evidence for negligent supervision under Restatement § 213	Porter argued Defendants’ training, policies, and supervision were inadequate and expert Libby shows those failures caused wrongful conviction	Defendants relied on uncontroverted evidence of training, written exculpatory-evidence policy, and argued Porter’s criticisms are hindsight/speculative and do not show foreseeability or causation	Court: Porter’s evidence is speculative/hindsight; he failed to show foreseeability or that additional policies/supervision would likely have changed the outcome — summary judgment for Defendants

Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254 (6th Cir. 1986) (standard when moving party bears the burden at summary judgment)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party; limitations on facts as shown by video)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must do more than show metaphysical doubt; need for specific evidence creating genuine dispute)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard that mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient at summary judgment)
Booker v. GTE.net LLC, 350 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2003) (Kentucky adopts Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 for negligent-supervision claims)