Fuller v. Hafoka
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:19-cv-00886
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Fuller v. Hafoka, Judge Thorson denied Fuller’s discovery motion because he did not justify extra requests or a hearing.
Fontell Demann Fuller’s requests for additional discovery and a hearing were denied; the defendants opposed those requests.
What happened
In Fuller v. Hafoka, Fontell Demann Fuller asked to serve 16 more document requests beyond the 25 allowed by the scheduling order. He also requested a hearing about alleged tampering with security-camera footage and withheld evidence.
The court denied the request for more document requests because Fuller did not explain how the materials related to his claims or specific allegations. It also denied a hearing because Fuller provided no evidence supporting his allegations, while defendants said the camera was used only for real-time surveillance and that available footage had already been provided.
Becky R. Thorson, the United States magistrate judge who signed the order, denied Fuller’s Motion of Discovery.
The detailed version
- Fuller v. Hafoka · No. 0:19-cv-00886
- Patrick Schiltz
- Aug. 19, 2020
Background
Fontell Demann Fuller moved for permission to serve additional document requests on defendants beyond the 25-request limit in the court’s Second Amended Scheduling Order. He also asked for a hearing concerning his allegations that defendants tampered with security-camera footage and withheld evidence.
The record stated that Fuller had already served 56 document requests, which defendants had answered. On July 30, 2020, he served 16 additional requests concerning defendants’ personnel files, Rule 20 evaluations, recorded phone calls, video footage, and After Action Review Documentations. Fuller said the additional documents were needed to support the merits of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and that he had recently learned about the After Action Review Documentations.
Additional document requests
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) requires a party seeking to change a scheduling order to show good cause. The court explained that a request to add discovery requires a particularized showing of why the discovery is necessary. It found that Fuller had not explained the relevance of the 16 requests or how they would support his specific allegations. The court therefore found no good cause to amend the scheduling order to allow those requests. The court also noted that defendants represented they did not possess the Rule 20 evaluations or After Action Review Documentations.
Request for a hearing
Fuller alleged that defendants had tampered with video footage requested on November 25, 2019. He also challenged defendants’ statement that a camera in a particular housing unit did not work or record. The court found that Fuller offered no evidence supporting these serious allegations and did not explain how he knew the camera was recording or why he suspected tampering or withholding of evidence.
Defendants represented that the camera was an old analog camera used only for real-time surveillance. They also represented that they had provided Fuller with the available video footage, including footage of the use-of-force incident underlying the lawsuit. Based on the record, the court found a hearing unnecessary at that time.
Disposition
The court ordered that Fuller’s Motion of Discovery, docket number 89, was DENIED. The order was signed by Becky R. Thorson, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.