323 F. Supp. 3d 1324
N.D. Ala.2018Background
- Plaintiff Aubrey Williams sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 after being shot by Officer Daniel Aguirre and later allegedly falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted; defendants include Aguirre, partner Haluska, the City of Birmingham, and others.
- Plaintiff served Rule 45 notices to two nonparty FOP organizations seeking broad records on prior incidents involving City officers (10-year lookback) and identification of FOP-referred attorneys.
- Defendants moved to quash/limit the subpoenas and objected to Plaintiff’s requests to extend discovery and to allow time for rebuttal expert reports concerning alleged enhancements/alterations of the police dashcam video.
- The parties disputed scope/relevancy of prior-incident discovery for municipal failure-to-train/supervise claims and whether the identity of attorneys retained by FOP was discoverable.
- Plaintiff sought a broad 120-day extension of discovery and a 60-day extension to produce rebuttal expert reports about video enhancements; he claimed newly obtained audio and late supplemental disclosures justified the extensions.
- The court narrowed the subpoenas (5-year lookback; only substantially similar incidents), disallowed attorney-identification, denied the broad discovery extension, but allowed limited rebuttal-expert discovery related to any video enhancements (rebuttal reports due May 4, 2018).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of FOP subpoenas for prior incidents | Williams: broad discovery of prior complaints (any excessive force) is relevant to municipal notice and should be allowed | City: requests overbroad; relevant only to substantially similar incidents (e.g., shootings by same officer); time period too long | Modified: limited to 5 years prior and only incidents substantially similar—(1) officer-involved firearm discharges with excessive-force allegations; (2) stops/arrests without reasonable suspicion/probable cause; (3) fabrication/concealment of evidence allegations; discoverable for any City officer, not limited to Aguirre/defendant officers |
| Discovery of whether prior complaints were "sustained" | Williams: non-final dispositions may still be discoverable; admissibility resolved later | City: only sustained complaints show actual constitutional violations and notice | Held: complaints need not be sustained to be discoverable; plaintiff may explore unsustained complaints given Rule 26's broad scope |
| Disclosure of identity/referral of attorneys assigned/retained by FOPs | Williams: sought names/referral/assignment | City: privileged/confidential and irrelevant; could lead to privileged communications | Held: identity of attorneys withheld — court sustained objection and precluded discovery of attorney identity/assignments; attorney-client and work-product concerns and low probative value |
| Extension for rebuttal expert discovery on video enhancements | Williams: needs time to hire rebuttal experts to examine Defendants' altered/enhanced dashcam versions and depose their experts | City: scheduling order has no rebuttal-expert provision; Plaintiff could have hired earlier or simply depose Defendants' experts | Held: Limited extension granted for rebuttal expert reports (due May 4, 2018) and 45 days for depositions; general 120-day extension denied for lack of diligence |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (municipal liability for failure to train requires close relation between training deficiency and injury)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (pattern of highly similar violations required to show municipal notice for training claims)
- Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir.) (prior incidents must be substantially similar to be probative of municipal liability)
- Gold v. City of Miami, 151 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir.) (municipal notice requires evidence of actual violations rather than merely unsubstantiated complaints)
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir.) (numerous past incidents insufficient without similarity to show notice)
- Brooks v. Scheib, 813 F.2d 1191 (11th Cir.) (sustained complaints relevant to notice; caution regarding unsubstantiated allegations)
- Board of Comm'rs of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (municipal liability principles for policymaker fault and pattern evidence)
- In re Grand Jury Matter No. 91-01386, 969 F.2d 995 (11th Cir.) (identity of client and lawyer generally not privileged except where identity reveals privileged motive)
- Howell v. Jones, 516 F.2d 53 (5th Cir.) (identity of consulted counsel is not privileged)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (work-product protections for attorney work prepared in anticipation of litigation)