Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rawlings v. District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


August 17, 2009

CHARLES RAWLINGS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul L. Friedman United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs' objections to the opinion and order of November 25, 2008 issued by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay, to whom this case was referred for the management of discovery.*fn1 In that opinion and order, Magistrate Judge Kay (1) denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion to compel the District of Columbia to disclose an unredacted copy of the final Force Investigation Team Report ("FIT Report") pertaining to the shooting at issue in this case; (2) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment or other sanctions to remedy alleged discovery violations by the defendants; and (3) granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel the District of Columbia to permit inspection of physical evidence. Magistrate Judge Kay also concluded that the depositions of Sergeant Wax and Officer Clay should be completed as soon as possible.*fn2 The plaintiffs now ask this Court to modify or set aside every aspect of Magistrate Judge Kay's November 25, 2008 decision on the ground that it is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." LOCAL CIV. R. 72.2(c); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).

Many of the plaintiffs' objections to the November 25, 2008 decision are now moot. Plaintiffs' objections related to the FIT Report and to Sergeant Wax's deposition testimony are moot by virtue of Chief Judge Lamberth's decision of June 10, 2009, see supra note 2, which addresses the extent to which Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applies to both. See Notice of Filing of Unsealed Order Denying the District of Columbia's Motion for an Order Authorizing the Disclosure of Grand Jury Material, Ex. 1, In re Grand Jury Investigation, Miscellaneous No. 09-0039, Memorandum Order (D.D.C. June 10, 2009) (Lamberth, C.J.). Because Chief Judge Lamberth's decision also addresses whether certain photographs may be disclosed -- and because the District of Columbia claims that the plaintiffs have inspected all other evidence in its possession -- the Court assumes that any remaining complaints the plaintiffs may have had related to access to physical evidence are moot as well.

As for the remainder of the plaintiffs' objections, the Court concludes that they do not warrant modifying or setting aside any part of Magistrate Judge Kay's November 25, 2008 opinion and order. The Court understands that the plaintiffs are frustrated with the pace of discovery in this case. Nevertheless, the Court cannot conclude that Magistrate Judge Kay acted erroneously or in a manner contrary to law when he concluded that the depositions of Sergeant Wax and Officer Clay should be completed as soon as possible or when he denied the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment or other sanctions. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum Opinion and Order of November 25, 2008 [41] are DENIED as moot in part and DENIED on the merits in part. For the reasons stated above, the Court declines to modify or set aside any aspect of Magistrate Judge Kay's November 25, 2008 opinion and order; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before August 31, 2009, the parties shall meet, confer and file a joint report informing the Court as to what discovery disputes remain to be decided, whether by the undersigned or by Magistrate Judge Kay.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.