United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
ANDREW P. RODOVICH, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Compel Federal Defendants' Answers to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Interrogatories [DE 257] filed on January 10, 2014; the Motion for Leave to File a Response [DE 258] filed by the plaintiffs on January 10, 2014; the Motion to Stay Prosecution of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 271] filed by the plaintiffs on February 24, 2014; the Motion to Extend the Discovery Closure Date [DE 272] filed by the plaintiffs on February 27, 2014; and the Motion to Compel [DE 282] filed by the plaintiffs on March 28, 2014.
For the following reasons, the Motion to Compel Federal Defendants' Answers to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Interrogatories [DE 257] is DENIED AS MOOT; the Motion for Leave to File a Response [DE 258] is DENIED; the Motion to Stay Prosecution of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 271] is DENIED; the Motion to Extend the Discovery Closure Date [De 272] is DENIED; and the Motion to Compel [DE 282] is DENIED.
This matter arises out of a search and seizure that federal agents and members of the Hammond Police Department conducted on the plaintiffs' home on December 28, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used excessive force by employing sound grenades and smoke bombs prior to entering their home to execute a search warrant and by shoving, grabbing, and using restraints on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants arrested them despite the fact that they had not violated any law. The plaintiffs also complain that the Hammond officers, Calumet City officers, and federal agents conspired to cause damage to the plaintiffs by agreeing falsely to arrest them, agreeing falsely to institute criminal proceedings against Roy Goodman, Jr., agreeing not to report each other after witnessing or using excessive force, agreeing not to report each other after falsely arresting or charging the plaintiffs, and generating false documentation to cover up their own and each others' misconduct.
The federal defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 30, 2010. The district court granted the motion and gave the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint with respect only to Count I, excessive force, and Count VIII, conspiracy related to the allegations of excessive force. The district court limited the excessive force claims to the use of flash-bang grenades because it determined that the defendants had qualified immunity for their other means of force. All other claims were dismissed against the federal defendants without leave to amend.
Following the district court's ruling, the federal defendants asked the court to limit the scope of discovery that may be served upon them to that related to the excessive force claims regarding the flash bang device. The court denied the federal defendants' motion, explaining that discovery extends to the pursuit of information that may be relevant to "any party's claim or defense."
On January 10, 2014, the plaintiffs moved the court to compel the federal defendants to answer interrogatory requests related to their malicious prosecution claims. The federal defendants objected but later filed a notice which stated that they were supplementing their response.
Over the course of discovery, the plaintiffs also learned that the defendants had pictures from the event that gave rise to this action. The defendants turned over the thumbnail images, but the plaintiffs now move to compel production of the electronic files containing the images.
On June 4, 2013, and August 9, 2013, some of the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On August 23, 2013, the district court set a briefing schedule for dispositive motions. The order stated that the plaintiffs were to respond to all pending motions by October 11, 2013, and that the defendants were to reply by October 31, 2013. On October 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a response. However, the plaintiffs did not respond to the substantive arguments in the defendants' motion and instead asked for additional time to conduct discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). The plaintiffs made no effort to conduct depositions prior to making this request, explaining that they were awaiting the federal defendants' response to several discovery requests so that they could identify the individual defendants' involvement in the incident. The plaintiffs did not file a separate motion seeking such relief.
On February 27, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an extension of time to complete discovery so that they could conduct depositions of the all of the defendants. The federal defendants objected because they provided initial disclosures that included the FBI reports that summarized the investigative activity related to the shooting and robbery. The report stated the name of every officer and agent involved in the investigation. It is the defendants' position that the plaintiffs had sufficient information to identify which agents were involved and to proceed with the depositions, and that their failure to do so does not warrant further delay with respect to the pending motions for summary judgment.
Some of the Hammond defendants also filed a motion for partial summary judgment [DE 265] on February 6, 2014. On February 24, 2014, the plaintiffs moved to stay prosecution of the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment so that they could conduct additional discovery. Several of the defendants who joined the motion for partial summary judgment were terminated on July 8, 2013. The remaining defendants were dismissed pursuant to a joint stipulation the parties filed on May 1, 2014.
The Hammond defendants also filed a motion to dismiss on November 8, 2013. On November 22, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss. Their motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were given until December 2, 2013, to file a response. The plaintiffs did not file a timely response, and the defendants moved for summary ruling. This court issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the motions for summary ruling be granted but that the ...