Williams v. City of Philadelphia Office of the Sheriff

JERMAINE WILLIAMS v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 17-2697

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

February 20, 2023

MEMORANDUM

R BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Ruling and/or In Limine To Be Allowed To Present the Eyewitness' Testimony In Rebuttal If Relevant (ECF No 72) and Defendants' Response in opposition thereto (ECF No. 76). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion will be DENIED.

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY^[1]

This case arises from an incident (the “Van Incident”) that occurred on November 14, 2016, during the transport of Plaintiff, who was in a wheelchair, and eight other prisoners from State Correctional Institution Graterford to the Criminal Justice Center in Philadelphia. At the time of the Van Incident, the van was owned by Defendant the City of Philadelphia Office of the Sheriff (the “Sheriff's Office”) and was staffed by Defendant Deputy Sheriff Javier Velasco, the driver, and Defendant Deputy Sheriff Victor Lopez (collectively, the “Deputies”). Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Velasco was driving at an unsafe speed as he rounded the corner to the east side of Philadelphia City Hall, and that Velasco slammed on the brakes, causing Plaintiff and other inmates to be ejected from their seats toward a grate inside the van. Plaintiff claims that he ended up on the floor of the van with two other inmates on top of him. He further claims that neither he nor the other inmates were properly secured inside the van. Defendants deny any liability and specifically deny that the Deputies failed to properly secure Plaintiff before beginning the transport and that Deputy Velasco drove around City Hall in an unsafe manner.

On June 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Sheriff's Office and the Deputies, asserting claims under both federal and state law. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (Count I) and a state law claim for negligent operation of a motor vehicle under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8542 (Count II). (Am. Compl., ECF No. 10.)

On October 3, 2017, with the agreement of counsel, the Court ordered this action consolidated for purposes of medical discovery with Plaintiff's separate action against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (the “DOC”) and two Pennsylvania corrections officers regarding a transport incident that occurred on January 19, 2015 (the “DOC Action”). (See ECF No. 16; Williams v. Whitaker et al., No. 16-cv-6379, ECF No. 11.)^[2]Thereafter, the Court conducted a series of status conferences in the consolidated actions. (See ECF Nos. 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 34.) On December 19, 2018, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a trial date and the remaining pretrial deadlines. (ECF No. 36.) On April 29, 2019, at the parties' request, the Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order extending the fact discovery deadline to August 23, 2019, and the dispositive motion deadline to September 20, 2019. (ECF No. 37.) On July 19, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel took the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Sheriff's Office Chief Inspector Joseph Evans. (Evans Dep. at 1, 6, 8, Defs.' MSJ Ex. A, ECF No. 38-1.) The Evans deposition transcript reflects that Plaintiff's counsel had the Sheriff's Office Incident Report listing the names of the other prisoner passengers in the Van Incident before the August 23, 2019, discovery deadline.^[3](Incident Report, Evans Dep. at 54-68, Ex. 4.)

Defendants subsequently filed a timely Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Court denied on January 21, 2020. (ECF Nos. 43, 44.) On May 18, 2022, after a settlement conference and further status conferences, the Court issued a Second Amended Scheduling Order setting a trial date of January 17, 2023, and requiring the parties, inter alia, to exchange trial witness and exhibit lists by January 2, 2023, and to submit the same to the Court by January 9, 2023. (ECF No. 54.) On January 9, 2023, the parties' submitted their respective witness lists to the Court, neither of which listed any of the other Van Incident prisoner passengers as trial witnesses.

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023, minutes before the commencement of trial, Plaintiff's counsel approached Court staff ex parte seeking the Court's permission to present testimony by video link of Terrence Mitchell, who, according to Plaintiff's counsel, was one of the prisoner passengers in the Van Incident and is currently incarcerated in a New Jersey prison. Plaintiff's counsel advised that he first attempted to locate other prisoner passengers via internet searches the Friday before trial, that he contacted Mitchell through a third party the weekend before trial, that Mitchell had agreed to testify about the Van Incident, but that Plaintiff had not yet arranged for or even discussed the proposed video link testimony with authorities at the New Jersey prison where Mitchell is housed. Plaintiff's counsel further advised that he had neither provided Defendants' counsel the proposed witness' name nor even informed them of his intent to present an undisclosed witness. After hearing argument from both sides on the record, the Court denied Plaintiff's request to call Mitchell as a witness. Shortly after this ruling and before jury selection could begin, the Court continued the trial for reasons unrelated to this litigation, and trial is now scheduled to begin February 27, 2023. In the interim, on January 19, 23, and 25, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel sent the Court a series of emails informally requesting permission to call Mitchell as a “rebuttal” witness. On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Reconsideration addressed herein.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion for Reconsideration

“Eastern District of Pennsylvania Local Rule 7.1(g) requires that ‘[m]otions for reconsideration or reargument shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the order concerned.” Rodriguez v. City of Philadelphia, No. 14-4435, 2018 WL 3036283, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 18, 2018). Assuming the motion is timely, a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010); Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). A court should not grant a motion for reconsideration where it simply asks the court to “rethink what [it] had already thought through- rightly or wrongly.” Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (internal quotations omitted). Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is to be granted sparingly because of the courts' interest in the finality of judgments. See, e.g., Conway v. A.I. duPont Hosp. for Child., 2009 WL 1492178, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2009).

B. Failure to Comply with Disclosure Rules and Orders

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 specifies in detail the early and ongoing disclosures required of a party. Specifically, Rule 26(a) provides, inter alia, that a party must:

• without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties[] the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information-along with the subjects of that information-that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i);

• [at least thirty days before trial, unless the court orders otherwise,] provide to the other parties and promptly file the following information about the evidence that it may present at trial other than solely for impeachment: (i) the name and, if not previously provided, the address and telephone number of each witness- separately identifying those the party expects to present and those it may call if the need arises; . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(i), (a)(3)(B); and

• supplement or correct its disclosure or response: (A) in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing; . . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1)(A).

Failure to comply with the Rule 26 disclosure obligations exposes the disobedient party to the sanctions set forth in Rule 37, which provides, in pertinent part:

A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1), or to amend a prior response to discovery as required by Rule 26(e)(2), is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). “Substantial justification” for the failure to make a required disclosure is only satisfied by “justification to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person that parties could differ as to whether the party was required to comply with the disclosure request.” United States v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., No. 99-5, 2000 WL 654378, *7 (D. Del. May 10, 2000); see also Henrietta D. v. Giuliani, No. 95-0641, 2001 WL 1602114, *5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2001) (“The test of substantial justification is satisfied if there...