United States District Court, D. Maine
DECISION AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge.
action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, most of whom are
or were corrections officers employed at the Somerset County
Jail, used excessive force when removing Plaintiff from his
cell during Plaintiff's pretrial detention in the jail.
As part of his claim, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
Somerset County is legally responsible for the deprivation of
his constitutional rights as the result of the County's
failure to train the individual Defendants on the use of
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Subpoena (ECF No. 430), Motion for Time to Review Video
Evidence (ECF No. 452), Motion to Join M. Jacques (ECF No.
455), and Motion to Reopen Discovery (ECF No. 461).
a review of Plaintiff's motions and the record, the Court
denies the motions.
Court's Amended Scheduling Order established February 20,
2014, as the deadline for amendment of the pleadings and
joinder of parties. (ECF No. 48.) The Court subsequently
permitted Plaintiff to assert additional claims and join
certain defendants on or before May 15, 2014, and later
authorized the “final” pleading filed by
Plaintiff on August 14, 2014. (ECF Nos. 67, 68, 71, 86, 92.)
The Court has not extended further the deadline for
amendments to the pleadings.
February 1, 2016, following its denial of Plaintiff's
motion to disqualify defense counsel, the Court established a
deadline for the filing of summary judgment motions. (ECF No.
316.) Plaintiff subsequently filed interlocutory appeals from
some of the decisions resulting in a stay of the proceedings
in this Court. When Plaintiff's appeals were either
withdrawn or dismissed, the Court established September 15,
2017, as the deadline for filing summary judgment motions.
(ECF No. 427.)
Defendants filed their summary judgment motions, Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Subpoena. (ECF No. 430.) After Defendants
filed their motions for judgment on the pleadings and for
summary judgment (ECF Nos. 431, 434, 438, 440), Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 452), Motion to
Amend (ECF No. 455), and Motion to Reopen Discovery (ECF No.
Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena
to Plaintiff, while his criminal case was pending, pursuant
to a search warrant, law enforcement officials searched his
cell and removed items of property that were then placed in a
box. Plaintiff contends the box contained documents that are
essential to his case, and he requests a subpoena for service
upon Somerset County officials for the return of the box and
request for a subpoena is essentially a request to conduct
discovery long after the June 15, 2015, discovery deadline
passed. Even with respect to a third-party witness, the use
of a subpoena to secure documents after the discovery
deadline is not ordinarily permitted. Williamson v.
Horizon Lines LLC, 248 F.R.D. 79, 83 (D. Me. 2008)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Furthermore,
although Plaintiff asserts the documents are necessary to the
defense of the summary judgment motions, he provides no facts
to support his assertion. Plaintiff, therefore, has offered
no reason for the Court to permit Plaintiff to conduct
discovery outside the discovery period.
B. Motion for Extension of Time to Examine Video
support of the motions for summary judgment, Defendants
submitted for the Court's consideration the Affidavit of
Donna Campbell, a paralegal assisting in the representation
of Defendants. (ECF No. 433-26.) In her affidavit, Ms.
Campbell explains that she edited the original video evidence
produced by the jail because “certain video clips
started part-way through one extraction, then switched over
at some point to the beginning of another extraction.”
(Id. ¶ 3.) Ms. Campbell asserts that her
editing was limited to ensuring that any video file that
captured only a portion of an extraction was joined together
with the video file that captured the rest of that particular
extraction. She further states that she did not eliminate
footage or alter the videos in any manner, except to join
video files that depicted the same extraction. (Id.
¶¶ 8 - 15.) Ms. Campbell organized the videos by
extraction date and time. (Id. ¶ 17.)
asserts that because Ms. Campbell reformatted and rearranged
the video evidence, he needs additional time to review the
video evidence and compare it with the videos produced in
discovery, in order to be able to respond to the summary
judgment motions. In addition to requesting additional time
to review the videos, Plaintiff evidently objects to the
Court's consideration of ...