Saathoff v. Davis, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11067

Background

On Nov. 17, 2012, an off‑leash gray/white pit bull attacked a brown Labrador ("Dog") owned by the Saathoff family and Kelsey Markou; bystanders struggled to separate the dogs and someone called police.
Officer Andre Davis arrived, shone a spotlight, assessed the fighting dogs (he is colorblind), drew his service weapon, and fired seven shots over ~2 minutes; two shots struck Dog (the family’s lab) and the remaining shots hit the pit bull; Dog died from the wound.
Plaintiffs sued Davis and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an unreasonable seizure (Fourth Amendment) and asserted related state‑law claims; the § 1983 claim against Davis proceeded to jury trial.
The jury returned a verdict for Davis; the district court denied plaintiffs’ post‑trial motions, and plaintiffs appealed only the judgment against Davis.
On appeal plaintiffs argued (1) discovery violations warranted a new trial, (2) the court misinstructed the jury about reasonableness (they sought Viilo language limiting deadly force against household pets), and (3) the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Davis committed discovery violations that warrant sanctions or a new trial	Davis failed to disclose key facts (dispatcher said one dog was "almost dead," his "mental checklist," limits of his police report), surprising plaintiffs and depriving them of the chance to obtain counter‑evidence	Plaintiffs had access to dispatcher log and police report; interrogatories were broad; plaintiffs could and should have asked targeted deposition questions; any omissions were harmless or impeachable	No abuse of discretion; district court did not err — testimony was not a surprise in substance and any inconsistencies were impeachable or harmless
Whether jury instruction on Fourth Amendment reasonableness should have included Viilo language restricting deadly force against household pets	Requested instruction: deadly force reasonable only if pet posed immediate danger and force was unavoidable	Instruction based on Seventh Circuit pattern adequately advised jurors to judge from officer’s perspective and circumstances; Viilo was factually distinguishable (shooting at owner’s house, not inter‑dog fight)	Court properly refused the Viilo phrasing; no prejudice from the instruction given
Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Facts (short time on scene, color confusion, alternatives available, no immediate human danger) made shooting unreasonable as a matter of law	Davis reasonably perceived imminent danger from a vicious pit bull, had prior pit‑bull experience, and rejection of alternatives was explainable given safety risks and uncertainty	No abuse of discretion; reasonable jurors could credit Davis’s testimony and find use of deadly force reasonable
Whether related City claims require further review if Davis’s judgment were vacated	(Plaintiffs) City summary‑judgment issues contingent on reversing Davis’s verdict	(City) Summary judgment proper; issue need not be decided if Davis’s judgment affirmed	Not reached because judgment for Davis is affirmed

Key Cases Cited

EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., 707 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for discovery and new‑trial rulings)
Farfaras v. Citizens Bank & Trust of Chicago, 433 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2006) (new‑trial standard for erroneous admission of evidence)
Viilo v. Eyre, 547 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2008) (deadly force against household pets discussed)
Lewis v. City of Chi. Police Dep’t, 590 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 2009) (review of jury instructions; evaluate instructions as whole)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (Fourth Amendment seizure principles)
Mejia v. Cook County, 650 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard for manifest‑weight/new‑trial review)
Whitehead v. Bond, 680 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2012) (deferential review of district court’s manifest‑weight determinations)