Opinion
Case No.: 5:07cv128/MCR/EMT.
June 5, 2008
ORDER
This cause is before the court upon Plaintiff's "Motion for Specific Documentation" (Doc. 41), which shall be construed as a motion to participate in discovery, and Defendant Mark Smith's response thereto (Doc. 42). Plaintiff appears to be requesting information relating to whether Defendant Mark Smith's employer, the Panama City Police Department, "participated in a career criminal prosecution program" such as those contemplated in §§ 775.0841-43 of the Florida Statutes (Doc. 41). These statutes provide, in pertinent part, the legislative intent behind the career criminal statutes. Additionally, the statutes describe persons subject to career criminal prosecution efforts. Finally, the aforementioned statutes describe the policies and procedures to be adopted by law enforcement agencies when investigating and prosecuting career criminal offenders.
Defendant Mark Smith objects to Plaintiff's request by stating that, "to the extent that the information sought by the Plaintiff is construed to be requesting information akin to legal research concerning the referenced statutes," that type of information is not the type of "specific documentation" that the court was requesting in its order dated April 22, 2008 (Doc. 42; see also Doc. 36).
The Florida Career Offender Registration Act provides, in pertinent part, that a career offender released on or after July 1, 2002, from a sanction imposed in this state must register as required by statute. See Fla. Stat. § 775.261(3)(a). Thus, if Plaintiff was required to register under the statute, he would have had a statutory obligation to register under the Florida Career Offender Registration Act, regardless of whether Defendant Mark Smith's employer had policies and procedures in place pursuant to the statutes recited by Plaintiff in his motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for conducting discovery because he has failed to show that the material he seeks is relevant to the issues raised in his complaint, specifically, whether Defendants wrongfully caused Plaintiff to be arrested for failing to register as a violent career criminal ( see generally Doc. 20).
However, in light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the court will grant Plaintiff's request to the extent that Defendants shall be required to answer the following interrogatory and related request for production:
1. Do the Panama City Police Department and the Bay County Sheriff's Department have policies and procedures (hereafter "policies") in place to apprehend career criminals such as those contemplated by §§ 775.0841-43 of the Florida Statutes, and were those policies in place at the time the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred?
2. If the above answer to either part of question one, above, is "yes," please provide Plaintiff with copies of the current written policies, and the former written policies if different from the current version. If no such written policies exist, please provide to Plaintiff the substance of the current policies, and the former policies if different.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's "Motion for Specific Documentation," construed as a motion to participate in discovery (Doc. 41), is GRANTED in part. The motion is granted to the extent that Defendants shall respond to the interrogatory and related request for production, as set forth in the body of this order, on or before JUNE 18, 2008.
Defendants' responses shall be provided directly to Plaintiff and not filed with the court.
2. Plaintiff shall be given an extension of time within which to respond to Defendants' special reports. Plaintiff shall file a response to the special reports on or before JULY 3, 2008.
DONE AND ORDERED.