finding that an expert may not “opine on the ultimate question of liability” by “testify[ing]. . . that the lax discipline policies of the Detroit Police Department indicated that the City was deliberately indifferent to the welfare of its citizens”
How later courts described this case
- finding that an expert may not “opine on the ultimate question of liability” by “testify[ing]. . . that the lax discipline policies of the Detroit Police Department indicated that the City was deliberately indifferent to the welfare of its citizens”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________
RAYMUREZ CHRISTOPHER BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 20-10192
JOSHUA SCAGLIONE, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
This case primarily involves a Section 1983 excessive force action against
arresting Defendant Westland police officers. Plaintiff Raymurez Brown was tased by
one of the Defendant officers as he held his two-month-old child. Plaintiff has filed a
motion to compel, seeking additional discovery. (ECF No. 74.) Specifically, Plaintiff
seeks an order both compelling Defendant Scaglione to sit for his deposition and
“compel[ling] the production of . . . personnel addresses” of three now-retired Westland
Police officers “who conducted the internal investigation. . . [regarding Plaintiff’s arrest]
which resulted in Defendant Scaglione’s 30 day suspension.” (Id., PageID.1921-22.)
Defendants have filed responses in opposition. (ECF Nos. 76, 77.) Defendants’
briefings argue that the testimony of the three retired officers is not relevant and would
be “at best cumulative and duplicative” because the officers were not witnesses to the
arrest at issue. (ECF No. 76, PageID.2018.) Defendants also argue that “[s]ince Plaintiff
has the entire, unredacted, internal investigative report [regarding the arrest at issue
here] and [Westland’s] complete Response to Resistance (use of force),” Plaintiff
“already has the best evidence as to any policy violations by [Defendant] officers.” (Id.,
PageID.2028.)
On March 31, 2022, the court held a telephonic conference with counsel to
determine the ongoing status of discovery disputes. During the conference, all parties
were given the opportunity to make a brief presentation regarding discovery and their
positions on the pending motion to compel. First, the parties collectively indicated that
Defendant Scaglione had recently sat for his deposition, so this part of Plaintiff’s motion
to compel was now moot. Plaintiff, however, indicated that Plaintiff continues to seek
production of the home addresses of the three now-retired Westland police officers so it
could attempt to subpoena and depose them—despite already possessing the
investigative report they prepared.1 When the court inquired what testimony Plaintiff
hoped that the retired officers could provide, Plaintiff’s suggested that the retired officers
could provide testimony for the factfinder regarding when a reasonable officer would
utilize his taser, demonstrating that Defendants’ actions were not objectively
reasonable.
The court finds that Plaintiff’s request to produce the now-retired officers' home
addresses would be disproportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
1 During the status conference, the parities indicated they intended to again meet
and confer to ensure that Plaintiff had in fact been provided a complete copy of the
investigative report subject only to limited redactions for sensitive personal information.
Absent further notification by the parities, the court assumes that such production has
been completed.
2
26(b)(1). The investigative report already produced to Plaintiff indisputably provides the
facts and reasons behind the police department’s decision to suspend Defendant
Scaglione, so the extent of the requested discovery is disproportionate to its marginal
value.2 Further, to the extent that Plaintiff wants to use the retired officers at trial to
testify to the objective reasonableness of Defendants actions, the court finds that such
testimony would be inappropriate testimony regarding the ultimate issue in dispute. See
Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342, 1353 (6th Cir. 1994) (finding that an expert may
not “opine on the ultimate question of liability” by “testify[ing]. . . that the lax discipline
policies of the Detroit Police Department indicated that the City was deliberately
indifferent to the welfare of its citizens”). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 74) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s motion is denied to the extent it seeks to require Defendants to produce
addresses for three retired Westland police officers who are not parties to the present
case. The portion of this motion seeking to compel the testimony of Defendant
Scaglione this motion is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither party shall be awarded costs.
s/Robert H. Cleland /
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 21, 2022
2 The also court notes that it has not yet determined the admissibility of the internal
investigative report.
3
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, April 21, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner /
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(810) 292-6522
S:\Cleland\Cleland\AAB\Opinions and Orders\Civil\20-10192.BROWN.DenyingMotionToCompel.AAB.docx
4