Rodriguez v. Riley

Background

Kelvin Francisco Rodriguez sued Mark Riley, Troy Appel, Evan Eggers, the Worthington Police Department, and the City of Worthington. He alleged that excessive force was used during his January 12, 2019 arrest and that he was denied medical assistance, causing serious injuries. He also asserted constitutional claims and state-law tort claims, including a claim that the City, the police department, and Chief Appel failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline employees and maintained an unconstitutional policy, pattern, or practice.

The defendants filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 to compel discovery responses. The motion addressed an interrogatory seeking a narrative of events before the arrest; interrogatories and document requests seeking medical information; a request for cellular-service invoices; and requests for communications.

Legal standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which generally permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court emphasized that it may limit discovery that is overly broad, duplicative, available from a less burdensome source, or outside that scope.

Analysis and rulings

The parties reached an agreement concerning Interrogatory No. 6, Interrogatories Nos. 13-17, and Requests for Production Nos. 3-4 after a court-ordered meeting. The court therefore denied the motion as moot as to those requests.

The court denied without prejudice the motion concerning Request for Production No. 28, which sought cellular-service invoices. Defense counsel represented that additional discovery responses were forthcoming, so there was no current dispute concerning that request.

The court denied the motion as to Request No. 23, which sought all correspondence between January 11 and January 13, 2019. The court found the request too broad because it covered communications regardless of subject matter and the defendants had not shown that its full scope was relevant and proportional. The court also denied the motion as to Requests Nos. 24 and 25, which sought all communications between Rodriguez and two specified people over a period beginning January 1, 2018. The court found those requests overly broad in time and subject matter and not proportional to the needs of the case.

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion as to Request No. 26. That request sought communications from January 1, 2018, onward that referenced the defendants, the City, or Rodriguez’s claims. The court required production only of responsive documents referencing Mark Riley, Troy Appel, and/or the Worthington Police Department. It rejected the request insofar as it broadly sought communications referencing the City of Worthington, reasoning that such communications could concern unrelated city services or conduct. The court stated that Rodriguez could withhold documents protected by privilege if he provided a privilege log consistent with Rule 26(b)(5).

Order

The court ordered the defendants’ Rule 37 motion to compel discovery responses granted in part and denied in part. It required Rodriguez to produce documents covered by Request No. 26, and any privilege log for withheld responsive documents, by September 14, 2020. That requirement would be stayed if either party appealed the decision. The court denied the defendants’ request for reasonable expenses because Rodriguez’s discovery responses and objections were substantially justified.

The order addressed discovery only; it did not decide the merits of Rodriguez’s excessive-force, medical-assistance, or other claims.