Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 02-CV-6363.
June 30, 2003
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's Responses to its Request for Production of Documents and Defendant's Response thereto. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff David Saitta ("Saitta") filed a Complaint against Defendant Terry L. Hammerstone ("Hammerstone") for illegal arrest and illegal search and seizure. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff asserts that on June 20, 2002, he entered and exited an unlocked Fleet Bank ("Fleet") in search of an ATM. Compl. ¶¶ 7, 8. Defendant, a North Wales Borough police officer, responded to the subsequent bank alarm and arrived soon thereafter. Def.'s Mem. Law Deny Pl.'s Mot. Compel at 1. Plaintiff maintains that even after he approached Defendant to explain his entry into the bank, Hammerstone arrested and handcuffed him. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 16. During Plaintiff's detainment, Defendant allegedly interrogated Saitta and asked if Plaintiff was buying drugs. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 18. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant searched Saitta's wallet without consent, and allegedly verified Plaintiff's explanation by using Saitta's cell phone to call Plaintiff's friend. Id. at ¶¶ 19, 20. Both parties agree that Defendant released Plaintiff from custody, after keeping him handcuffed for over an hour. Def.'s Mem. Law Deny Pl.'s Mot. Compel at 2.
Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant to respond to his Supplemental Request for Production of Documents. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks:
(1) all documents pertaining to robberies or criminal behavior occurring at Fleet Bank prior to June 20, 2002; (2) the report from Defendant concerning any persons inside the same Fleet building where the incident in the Complaint took place, identified by Hammerstone at his deposition; (3) any police reports prepared by Defendant concerning his responding to a bank alarm during his employment at North Wales Borough; (4) a complete copy of Defendant's personnel file with North Wales Borough, omitting employee benefit information; and (5) any incident report from anytime in Officer Hammerstone's police career where he was attacked by a person whose handcuffs he removed.
Pl.'s Supplemental Req. Produc. Docs. at 1-2. In opposition, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's five requests are "overly broad and unduly burdensome" and are "not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for liberal discovery. See Pacitti v. Macy's, 193 F.3d 766 (3d Cir. 1999). In general,
[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Courts construe relevancy broadly to "encompass any matter that bears on or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Though "meant to insure that no relevant fact remain[s] hidden," discovery has ultimate and necessary limits. Crawford v. Dominic, 469 F. Supp. 260, 262 (3d Cir. 1979). See also Zuk v. Eastern Pa. Psychiatric Institute, 103 F.3d 294, 299 (3d Cir. 1996).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff's Document Request # 2: Fleet Bank Robberies
Plaintiff seeks to compel all documents pertaining to robberies or criminal behavior occurring at Fleet prior to June 20, 2002. Between February and May of 2002, a series of bank robberies was committed by and attributed to a single suspect, dubbed the "Friday Night Bank Robber" ("FNBR"). Memorandum from Mike Johnston, dated May 22, 2002, attached to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Plaintiff contends that Defendant suspected Saitta of being the FNBR and used the suspect's profile to justify Plaintiff's detainment.
Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request on the grounds that it is too broad in scope and in duration. First, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff did not identify from which of the five local branches of Fleet he wants records. Second, Defendant alleges Plaintiff did not specify the chronological parameters for the banks' records. Finally, Defendant claims that the references he made to the Fleet robberies during his Deposition testimony did not serve as justification for Plaintiff's arrest, but rather provided background about Hammerstone's suspicion of Saitta stemming from the FNBR robberies. Defendant, therefore, contends that the documents which Plaintiff requests are neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
I find Defendant's arguments to be unpersuasive. In his deposition, Defendant testified that "Fleet Banks [in the aggregate] had been getting hit on a regular basis." Def. Dep. at 62. As such, documentation pertaining to all five Fleet branches is relevant and could possibly lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's request should have limits, however. Plaintiff did not refer to a specific starting date in his Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, but did inquire in Defendant's Deposition about Fleet robberies that occurred up to six months prior to the incident. See Pl.'s Supplemental Req. Produc. Docs. at #2; see also Def.'s Dep. at 63. Furthermore, the police memorandum indicates that the FNBR robberies occurred within the same time period. See Memorandum from Mike Johnston, dated May 22, 2002, attached to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Accordingly, I will grant Plaintiff's motion with regard to this request, limited to those incidents at Fleet occurring between January 2002 and June 20, 2002.
B. Plaintiff's Document Request # 3: Similar Incident in Same Location
Plaintiff also moves to compel the report Defendant filed concerning a cleaning crew member who was present at the Fleet building at the time of a prior alarm. Although Defendant restrained Plaintiff for sixty-eight minutes, Hammerstone did not handcuff the cleaning crew member. See Def.'s Mem. Law Deny Pl.'s Mot. Compel at 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's request as he contends that the circumstances surrounding the cleaning crew member did not warrant the use of handcuffs. Relevancy, however, is broadly construed. See Oppenheimer Fund. Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Defendant has alleged that his safety standard necessitates handcuff usage, and Plaintiff asserts that the report in question counters this allegation. Moreover, Defendant introduced and identified the incident in his deposition. See Def.'s Dep. at 18-20. As such, I conclude that the report is relevant and likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel with regard to this request will be granted.
C. Plaintiff's Document Request # 4: Similar Incidents
Plaintiff moves the Court to compel any police reports prepared by Defendant concerning his responses to bank alarms during his employment at North Wales Borough. I find that the reports which Plaintiff requests are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel with regard to this request will be granted.
D. Plaintiff's Document Request # 5: Personnel File
With regard to Request # 5, Plaintiff moves to compel a complete copy of Defendant's personnel file with North Wales Borough, omitting employee benefit information. Defendant objects to this request, arguing Hammerstone's history as a police officer has no connection to the instant matter. However, "[d]iscovery of personnel records and disciplinary files [of a police officer defendant,] absent the personal information that Plaintiff's subpoena directs the department to remove, is routinely permitted in civil rights cases such as this one."Revelle v. Trigg, 1999 WL 80283, *6 (E.D.Pa. 1999). See also Crawford v. Dominic, 469 F. Supp. 260 (3d Cir. 1979). I find that the material Defendant requests is relevant and likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel with regard to this request will be granted.
E. Plaintiff's Document Request # 8: Incidents of Attack
Plaintiff also moves to compel the production of any report filed or made during Hammerstone's police career detailing an attack by a suspect whose handcuffs he had removed. Defendant asserts that the requested material is not in his possession, but rather under the control of the New Hope Police Department. Accordingly, I will deny Plaintiff's motion with regard to this request. An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this ___ day of June, 2003, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Defendant's Response in opposition thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is:
1. GRANTED as to Request # 2, limited to those incidents at Fleet occurring between January 2002 and June 20, 2002;
2. GRANTED as to Request # 3;
3. GRANTED as to Request # 4;
4. GRANTED as to Request # 5; and
5. DENIED as to Request # 8.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall produce all documents within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order.