United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court of Plaintiff Kenneth
Dickerson's Motion to Compel Defendants to Respond to
Plaintiffs Requests for Production. (ECF No. 53) Defendants
City of St. Louis, Vernon Betts, Jeffrey Carson, Charlene
Deeken, Kimberly Gardner, Dale Glass, and James Moss
(collectively referred to as "Defendants") filed a
memorandum in opposition. (ECF No. 55) Plaintiff did not file
a reply memorandum, and the time to do so has since passed.
February 13, 2019, Plaintiff sent Defendants a set of
Requests for Production of Documents. On March 15, 2019,
Defendants sent their responses and objections. The parties
met and conferred on April 19, 2019, after which Defendants
produced certain documents.
August 20, 2019, Plaintiff conducted a corporate
representative deposition of St. Louis Sheriffs Deputy
Whitney Windom, who works in the records office for the
Sheriffs Department. Plaintiff asserts Windom stated during
her deposition that she maintains a folder of memoranda
concerning nolle prosequi cases of individuals the
Sheriffs Office believed to be illegally detained (referred
to as "Nolle Pros Folder"). Additionally,
Windom disclosed that a committee, known as the Criminal
Justice Coordinating Committee or the Criminal Justice
Counsel Committee ("CJCC"), has been meeting to
discuss the issue of illegally detained individuals in the
City of St. Louis.
Windom's deposition, Plaintiff sent an email requesting
production of the Nolle Pros Folder and records from
the CJCC meetings. Plaintiff argues both items are responsive
to the first Requests for Production of Documents. Defendants
object and argue both are irrelevant to Plaintiffs claims.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to
compel discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(1)
("On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a
party may move for an order compelling disclosure or
discovery."). Likewise, Rule 26 governs the scope of
discovery in federal matters:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of
discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of
the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake
in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'
relative access to relevant information, the parties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
First Request for Production of Documents included, inter
alia, the following requests:
REQUEST NO. 1:
Please produce all documents and recordings that Defendants
possess regarding or relating to the ...