Potter v. City of Dothan, Alabama (CONSENT), 1:16-cv-00749

Plaintiff David Potter sued the City of Dothan and individual officers alleging claims that implicate use of force. The dispute here concerns the plaintiff’s first motion to compel certain document production.
Plaintiff served requests for production seeking: (1) all complaints regarding the officers named in the suit; (2) documents related to any internal investigation concerning the plaintiff or the litigation; (3) complete personnel, training, and internal affairs files for each individual defendant; and (4) complaints of misconduct against two individual defendants (Mock and Traynoholm).
Defendants objected that the requests were overbroad, not relevant, and protected by privilege or work-product.
The court applied Rule 26(b)(1) relevance principles and balanced discovery liberalism against privacy/confidentiality and the need to confine discovery to claims and defenses in the pleadings.
The court granted the motion in part: it ordered production of excessive-force complaints and use-of-force training materials limited to a three-year period before the incident at issue; it denied production of full internal affairs and personnel files as not shown to be relevant at this stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Production of complaints against named officers	Potter sought all complaints concerning the officers to show pattern/propensity	Defendants said request is overbroad, irrelevant, and privileged	Granted in part: produce complaints alleging excessive force within 3 years of incident
Production of use-of-force training records	Potter sought training files to show inadequate training or notice	Defendants objected as overbroad and intrusive	Granted in part: produce training file materials related to use-of-force within 3 years of incident
Production of internal affairs files and full personnel files	Potter sought entire internal affairs and personnel files for additional relevant info	Defendants asserted privacy, privilege, and overbreadth; no showing of relevance	Denied: plaintiff failed to show these files would provide additional relevant, non-privileged information at this juncture
Temporal/scope limits on discovery	Potter sought broad, unrestricted productions	Defendants argued scope must be narrowed to relevant time and subject matter	Court limited productions to three years before the incident and to matters concerning excessive force or use-of-force training

Burns v. Thiokol Chem. Corp., 483 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1973) (courts have broad discretion in fashioning discovery rulings)
Williams v. City of Dothan, Ala., 745 F.2d 1406 (11th Cir. 1984) (discovery conditions may be imposed to prevent harassment or abuse)
Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (discussing district court discretion and Rule 26(b)(1) flexibility)
U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 165 F.3d 952 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Rule 26(b)(1) designed to accommodate competing interests)
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (privacy and confidentiality are relevant in discovery balancing)