White v. City of Cleveland

417 F.Supp.3d 896

Dalonte WHITE, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF CLEVELAND, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-01165

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

Signed October 25, 2019

Brian D. Bardwell, Patrick C. Haney, Sandhya Gupta, Subodh Chandra, Chandra Law Firm, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff.

Elena N. Boop, Michael Joseph Pike, Stacey M. Pellom, Timothy J. Puin, Katherine L. Keefer, Wesley M. Kretch, City of Cleveland Department of Law, Ernest L. Wilkerson, Jr., Kathryn M. Miley, Wilkerson & Associates, Janeane R. Cappara, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

PAMELA A. BARKER, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court upon the Joint Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Deposition Testimony, or, in the Alternative, to Stay Litigation ("Motion to Compel") of Defendants City of Cleveland and Officers Thomas Shoulders, Michael Schade, David Lam, David Santiago, Jr., John Kubas, and Robert Beveridge (collectively, "Defendants"). (Doc. No. 115.) Plaintiff Dalonte White filed a brief in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel on October 2, 2019, to which Defendants replied on October 9, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 122, 126.)

The City of Cleveland (the "City") has also filed Objections (Doc. No. 118) to Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg's Order (Doc. No. 116) that held Plaintiff was entitled to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as noticed in Plaintiff's Second Amended Notice of Deposition of City of Cleveland Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (Doc. No. 102). Plaintiff responded to the City's Objections on October 8, 2019. (Doc. No. 125.)

For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Compel is DENIED, and the City's Objections are OVERRULED IN PART and SUSTAINED IN PART.

I. Background

a. Factual Background

This case arises from Plaintiff's arrest as a suspect in a home invasion that occurred on April 21, 2015 at the home of Colleen Alums. (Doc. No. 23 at ¶¶ 9-10.) As alleged in the Amended Complaint, on April 28, 2015, police arrested Plaintiff for his alleged involvement in the home invasion. (Id. at ¶ 25.) The arrest was based on the three victims' identification of Plaintiff in a photo array as the main perpetrator of the home invasion. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-22.) However, Plaintiff alleges that the array was highly suggestive for a number of reasons, and that police ignored another suspect, Edward Bunch, who was seen at a hospital only an hour after the home invasion with injuries consistent with what occurred during the home invasion and whose physical characteristics were a much closer match to the description of the main perpetrator. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 13, 18-20.)

As a result of his arrest, Plaintiff—who was a juvenile at the time—was detained at the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Detention Center. (Id. at ¶ 26.) During his detention, another juvenile inmate kicked Plaintiff in the face and broke his jaw, which necessitated surgery. (Id. at ¶ 43.) During this initial detention, Defendants assert that Plaintiff also assaulted two inmates, which resulted in two separate delinquency adjudications. (Doc. No. 115 at 8.) Defendants allege one of the victims in those attacks was the juvenile who subsequently attacked Plaintiff and broke his jaw. (Id. )

In August 2015, Plaintiff was released and placed on home detention pending the prosecution's dismissal of the home invasion case, as the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court had determined that the prosecution lacked probable cause to prosecute Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 23 at ¶¶ 40-41, 45.) This ruling was based in part on the fact that, shortly after Plaintiffs' arrest and detention, the three victims went to the police station to view additional photo arrays, and all three victims independently identified Bunch as the main perpetrator of the home invasion. (Id. at ¶¶ 27-28, 40.)

While on home detention, Plaintiff allegedly violated the terms of his detention and was detained again around September or October 2015. (Id. at ¶ 45.) Defendants contend Plaintiff's re-detention was the result of his arrest in connection with a menacing report, although Plaintiff disputes this and asserts he was arrested based on an open warrant unrelated to the September 2015 menacing incident. (Doc. No. 115 at 4; Doc. No. 122 at 2-3.) According to Defendants, Plaintiff committed a third assault against another inmate after he was re-detained. (Doc. No. 115 at 8-9.)

On December 8, 2015, the prosecutor, having not discovered any new evidence to support its case against Plaintiff, dismissed the home-invasion case against him. (Doc. No. 23 at ¶ 46.)

b. Procedural History

On May 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed suit against the City and several Cleveland Division of Police officers in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. (Doc. No. 1-1.) Shortly thereafter, the City removed the case to this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants on August 3, 2017. (Doc. No. 23.) Plaintiff asserts a variety of claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law based on Defendants' alleged improper conduct during the investigation of the home invasion, the arrest and detention of Plaintiff without probable cause, and the failure to disclose exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The Amended Complaint also contains a claim against the City for its failure to properly train and supervise its officers. Based on these claims, Plaintiff seeks a variety of forms of relief, including compensatory damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and inconvenience.

From July to September 2019, the Court referred several discovery disputes to the Magistrate Judge for resolution. (Doc. Nos. 81-1, 86, 103, 104.) One of these disputes concerned Plaintiff's notice of the deposition of the City under Rule 30(b)(6). (Doc. No. 102.) The City objected to the noticed topics of questioning as duplicative of other discovery, overly broad, and seeking testimony protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. On September 20, 2019, the Magistrate Judge held that Plaintiff was entitled to the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as noticed. (Doc. No. 116.) The City then filed Objections to that Order. (Doc. No. 118.)

In addition, on September 10, 2019, the parties contacted the Court regarding a dispute that arose during Plaintiff's deposition related to Plaintiff's refusal to answer certain questions based on his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. (Doc. No. 111.) In accordance with the Court's instructions, the Defendants then filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff's deposition testimony. (Doc. No. 115.) Therein, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has waived his right to remain silent and seek to compel Plaintiff to answer questions related to the facts and circumstances of certain incidents that occurred both before and after his arrest on April 28, 2015 for the home invasion. Alternatively, should the Court determine that Plaintiff has not waived his right to remain silent, Defendants request a stay of this litigation until the statute of limitations has expired for crimes for which Plaintiff fears prosecution.

Both the City's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order and Defendants' Motion

to Compel are fully briefed and ripe for review.

II. Defendants' Motion to Compel

In their Motion to Compel, Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to answer questions related to the facts and circumstances of (1) crimes to which he admitted committing pursuant to plea agreements in juvenile court prior to his arrest on April 28, 2015 for the home invasion; (2) Plaintiff's assaults of other inmates while he was in detention following the April 28, 2015 arrest; and (3) the menacing incident that occurred in September 2015. Defendants contend that this information is relevant to whether there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for the home invasion and to damages, and that Plaintiff waived his right to remain silent either by his admissions in juvenile court or by filing the present lawsuit, which placed the information at issue.¹ Alternatively, Defendants' request a stay of the litigation until after the statute of limitations has passed for any incidents for which the Court concludes Plaintiff has not waived his Fifth Amendment privilege.

In response, Plaintiff indicates that, after Defendants filed their Motion to Compel, he testified at his continued deposition regarding the facts and circumstances of the assault charges he picked up while in detention. As a result, Plaintiff argues that Defendants' motion is moot as to the assault incidents. In their reply brief, Defendants do not contest this point. As such, the Court will assume that Plaintiff has testified regarding the assault charges and will deny that portion of Defendants' Motion to Compel as moot.

With regard to Plaintiff's prior juvenile adjudications, Plaintiff asserts that his prior admissions did not waive his Fifth Amendment rights because Plaintiff remains vulnerable to future prosecution for other charges arising out of the same facts and circumstances. In addition, Plaintiff argues that the filing of this lawsuit did not waive his right to remain silent for either his prior juvenile adjudications or the September 2015 menacing incident because neither are relevant to any of the issues in this case. The Court agrees with Plaintiff's arguments, and therefore denies Defendants' Motion to Compel. Moreover, because the information is not relevant, there is no need to stay this case to allow for Plaintiff's testimony after the applicable statutes of limitations have expired.

a. Standard of Review

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1), "[p]arties 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." Rule 37(a) permits a party to move for an order compelling discovery, including an order compelling an answer by a deponent. Fed. R....