James v. Cuyahoga Cnty.

648 F.Supp.3d 897

Deonte JAMES, Plaintiff, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01958

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Signed December 28, 2022

Jessica Smith Savoie, Ashlie Case Sletvold, Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff.

Janeane R. Cappara, Michael J. Stewart, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney - Cuyahoga County, Leslie J. Shafer, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, Cleveland, OH, Kenneth M. Rock, U.S. Department of Labor, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Judge

In this lawsuit alleging unconstitutional use of force in two incidents while Plaintiff Deonte James was detained in the Cuyahoga County jail, two discovery disputes have arisen. First, Plaintiff served discovery requests seeking incident reports of similar uses of force during the two years before the events at issue. Defendant Cuyahoga County identified some 450 incidents, and Plaintiff requested video footage of them. The County produced some, but not all, of those videos, and Plaintiff now moves to compel. Second, the County designated the incident reports and videos produced confidential under the protective order in this case. Plaintiff seeks an order removing those designations on the ground that the materials at issue are public records under State law. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to compel.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This discovery dispute arises against the backdrop of the following allegations and positions of the parties set out in the pleadings and record before the Court. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court has no view on the factual or legal merit of any party's claims or defenses, and this discussion of the background should not be taken as anything other than a summary of the record at this point in time as it bears on a discovery dispute.

A. Detention at the County Jail

This civil-rights action arises from two events that allegedly occurred during the detention of Plaintiff Deonte James in the Cuyahoga County jail in October 2019. According to the complaint, on October 18, 2019, Mr. James was arrested and booked into the jail. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 70, PageID #19.) During the booking process, Mr. James exhibited signs of physical and mental impairment. While in his holding cell, Mr. James indicated that he suffered from post-concussive syndrome, complained of chest pain, and collapsed on the floor. (Id., ¶¶ 71 & 72, PageID #20.) In addition, Mr. James "exhibited obvious signs that he was [mentally] unwell, including telling a nurse that he was a Templar Knight who had recently escaped being assassinated by the Pope." (Id., ¶ 75.) Further, Mr. James "told the Jail's psychiatric nurse practitioner that he wanted to kill himself." (Id., ¶ 76.) As a result, the nurse placed Mr. James on full suicide precautions. (Id.)

Defendants denied these allegations for lack of sufficient information. (ECF No. 9, ¶ 32, PageID #279.) In their brief opposing the motion to compel, the County states that, in the hours before his detention, Mr. James "tested positive for PCP and was largely unresponsive and uncooperative with intake corrections officers." (ECF No. 22, PageID #564.)

A.1. Use of Pepper Spray on October 18, 2019

Sergeant Adam Broeckel escorted Mr. James to a cell in the mental health housing unit and ordered Mr. James to remove his clothing. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 78, PageID #21.) The complaint alleges that a body-worn camera documented the events that followed. (Id.) Mr. James did not comply with Sgt. Broeckel's order to disrobe and covered his face with a blanket. (Id., ¶¶ 78 & 80.) Then, Sgt. Broeckel pepper sprayed Mr. James. (Id., ¶¶ 80 & 81.) According to the complaint, "Mr. James posed no threat of harm to any officer or inmate." (Id., ¶¶ 82, PageID #21; see also id., ¶¶ 83-89, PageID #22.)

Defendants deny these allegations. (ECF No. 9, ¶¶ 32 & 33, PageID #279.) In their motion papers, the County offers two clarifications to these alleged fats. (ECF No. 22, PageID #564.) First, the County posits that medical personnel asked Mr. James to remove his clothes as part of the suicide precautions that the jail takes. (Id.) He was offered two suicide blankets to cover himself and stay warm. (Id.) Second, the County represents that "[t]he video pertaining to this incident confirms that Plaintiff was not pepper sprayed because he covered his face with his shirt." (Id.) Instead, Mr. James refused to follow directions and was in his cell unrestrained. (Id.)

A.2 Use of Oleoresin Capsicum on October 27, 2019

On October 27, 2019, Mr. James engaged in an altercation with staff while at the medical dispensary. On that day, according to the complaint, Mr. James went to the medical dispensary to obtain a bandage for a laceration of his finger. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 105, PageID #25.) While walking to the medical dispensary, Corrections Officer Damein Bodeker threatened to pepper spray Mr. James. (Id., ¶ 106.) In the dispensary, the complaint alleges that body-worn cameras captured what happened next. (Id.) According to the complaint, Officer Bodeker ordered Mr. James to sit down in a chair. (Id.)

After the jail nurses provided care to Mr. James, Officer Bodeker ordered Mr. James to stand up and place his arms behind his back. (Id., ¶ 107, PageID #26.) As Mr. James stood up, his pants fell below his buttocks. (Id., ¶ 108.) Instead of allowing Mr. James to pull his pants up, Officer Bodeker "immediately used force against Mr. James [by] grabbing his arms." (Id., ¶ 111.) After Mr. James flinched, officers bent him over a desk while two corrections officers, Frederick Barthany and Officer Bodeker, sprayed oleoresin capsicum foam into Mr. James' face. (Id., ¶¶ 114 & 115, PageID #27.) While three officers restrained Mr. James, face down, on the floor, Officer Barthany sprayed foam directly into Mr. James' eyes for four seconds from a distance of one inch. (Id., ¶¶ 117 & 119.) Then, officers strapped Mr. James into a restraint chair. (Id., ¶¶ 121 & 126, PageID #28.) Defendants deny these allegations. (ECF No. 9, ¶¶ 38-45, PageID #279-80.)

In response, the County offers a different version of events. (ECF No. 22, PageID #565.) While Mr. James, who stands six feet ten inches tall and weighs over three hundred pounds, was unrestrained in a small room "in the close proximity of other inmates and nurses," he became combative. (Id.) An officer requested that he put his hands up to be handcuffed and used OC pepper foam when Mr. James refused to comply. (Id.)

B. Plaintiff's Claims

Based on these alleged facts, Plaintiff filed a ten-count complaint against Cuyahoga County and Corrections Officers Broeckel, Bodeker, and Barthany on October 15, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts causes of action for excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count 1); intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress (Counts 2 and 3); claims against Cuyahoga County under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8); an equal protection claim against the County (Count 9); and failure to intervene in violation of Section 1983 against Officers Bodeker and Barthany (Count 10).

C. Discovery

On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents to Cuyahoga County. (ECF No. 21-2, PageID #383-88.) Two requests are at issue—Request No. 1 and Request No. 5. They seek:

1. All documents related to the use of force by any corrections officer against any inmate housed in the Jail's Mental Health Unit from October 19, 2017 to October 27, 2019. Production should specifically include video footage from surveillance and body-worn cameras and written reports of such incidents.

5. All documents related to the use of force against restrained inmates from October 19, 2017 to October 27, 2019. Production should include video footage from surveillance and body-worn cameras and written reports of such incidents.

(Id., PageID #385-87.)

Initially, the County objected to these requests, though it did so one day after the deadline. (See id., Page ID #392-93 & #400; Minutes, Dec. 28, 2021 (setting agreed deadline for discovery responses).) In response to each request, the County objected on the grounds of relevance, proportionality, and privilege. (ECF No. 21-2, PageID #394-95 & #396-97.) Although Rule 34(b)(1)(B) requires specificity for the grounds for any objection, the County's objections merely asserted relevance and proportionality in conclusory fashion without providing any grounds to support these objections. Notwithstanding its objections, the County offered to make documents responsive to each request available for review at the offices of its counsel. (ECF No. 21-2, PageID #394-95 & #396-97.) But the County did not state that it would not permit inspection of any documents on the basis of any objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(C).

C.1. Use-of-Force Reports and the Protective Order

In the course of coordinating inspection of these documents, counsel for the County disclosed that "[t]he incident reports are stored in filing cabinets in the Warden's Complex, so we have to coordinate with them. They're not organized in any particular way, other than a loose chronological order, so reviewing them may take days." (ECF No. 21-2, PageID #403.) Later, counsel made arrangements to review and copy responsive documents at the prosecutor's office. (Id., PageID #410.) In its motion papers, the County represents that an employee of the sheriff's department worked full time for just over two months to search the County's records for potentially responsive incident reports, which totaled about 10,000 pages. (ECF No. 22, PageID #566.) By May 10, 2022, the County made these reports available for inspection, and Plaintiff selected around 450 reports of incidents, comprising about 5,500 pages, involving use of force against individuals who were...