Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Brannan v. Force

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

October 16, 2014

KEVIN FORCE, et al., Defendants.


JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 34), Motion to Compel Production Discovery (Doc. No. 35), and Motion for Leave to Take Depositions by Written Question. (Doc. No. 38) Defendants filed memoranda in opposition to Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel and compel production. (Doc. Nos. 36, 37) Plaintiff did not file a reply. No memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to take depositions by written question was filed. The motions are, therefore, fully briefed and ready for disposition.

Motion for appointment of counsel

A review of the file indicates that Plaintiff first requested appointment of counsel on March 3, 2014. (Doc. No. 9) Plaintiff's request was considered in light of relevant factors, see Battle v. Armontrout , 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990) and Johnson v. Williams , 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986), and denied on March 25, 2014. (Doc. No. 10) Plaintiff filed a second motion for appointment of counsel on June 2, 2014 stating that because he is incarcerated, he has been unable to obtain depositions to support his claims of excessive force and unlawful arrest. (Doc. No. 29) The Court instructed Plaintiff to be guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the discovery he wishes to pursue and denied his motion without prejudice on July 10, 2014. (Doc. No. 31) In his current motion, Plaintiff again states he cannot perfect his discovery without assistance of counsel. The Court finds nothing in the record to cause it to reconsider its previous orders denying Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's contentions regarding the accuracy of video surveillance footage has no bearing on the complexity of this case. He admits to viewing the video and has demonstrated that he is able to articulate and present his claims. Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice.

Motion to compel

In his motion, Plaintiff seeks the following production from Defendants:

Production No. 1: "Plaintiff seeks the medical technician name and records from DePaul Hospital, who treated him, to prove force to arrest was over excessive and violation of Eighth Amendment of U.S.C.A., cruel and unusual punishment."
Production No. 2: Plaintiff seeks deposition, or any and all statements made by defendants, which defendants intend to use as a defense in denying rise to plaintiff claims of no probable cause, illegal arrest, and use of excessive force."
Production No. 3: "Plaintiff seeks deposition or any and all statements made by owner of car wash in regards to the accuracy of the video camera, and any detailed information which defendants may have been apprised."
Production No 4: "Plaintiff seeks records of any [sic] all participants, which defendants intend to rely on in the event of trial, to dispute plaintiff claims, including any statements made by any other officer of the Bridgeton Police Department, or anyone else who will dispute plaintiff claims made to this Court."
Production No. 5: "Plaintiff seek a full report of defendants submitted reports to Parole Officer James Cashatt, in that these reports are coupled with false allegations which gave rise to violation, and such reports are needed to prove there was no probable cause for his arrest, which constituted the excessive force."

The usual method to acquire documents from a party defendant, to the extent such documents exist, is to serve a request for production of documents on the party defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. If that defendant fails to respond or objects to the document production, and the plaintiff thinks that the defendant's failure to respond or objection is improper, then the plaintiff can file a motion to compel discovery pursuant to Rule 37. Forest v. Barnes Jewish Hosp., 2008 WL 957681, at *1 (E.D.Mo. Apr. 7, 2008) (citing Fisher v. Marubeni Cotton Corp. , 526 F.2d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1975) ("If... a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails to respond... the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer... or an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request....")).

Defendants argue Plaintiff's motion does not meet the criteria set forth in Rule 37(a) regarding the enforcement of discovery obligations in that it was filed without first requesting discovery pursuant to Rule 34 and should, therefore, be denied. Plaintiff's motion does not appear to be an actual motion to compel but rather a request for production directed at defendants.[1] Accordingly, Defendants will be ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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