United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
STEPHANIE STURGEON, et al. PLAINTIFFS
v.
BRODIE FAUGHN, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
I.
Introduction:
Eleven
Plaintiffs filed this civil rights lawsuit in November 2018
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They claim that Defendants
violated their rights guaranteed by the 4th and 14th
Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Docket entry
#1, #13, #26) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Wynne
police officers Brodie Faughn and Brittany Eskridge misused
their positions as police officers to bully, harass, and
intimidate them by falsely stopping, ticketing, searching
and, in some cases, arresting the them. (Id.) They
further claim that the City of Wynne, Arkansas (“the
City”) had “a municipal custom of deliberate
indifference to a known pattern of excessive and
unconstitional police conduct.” (#26 at 16) Plaintiffs
seek both compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at
1, 13, #26)
In
addition to the City, Plaintiffs also sue Officers Faughn and
Eskridge, Mayor Robert Stacy, and Chief of Police Jeff
Sanders in both their official and individual capacities and
City Council members Billy Fowler, Charles Hamrick, Glenn
Hirons, Buck Morris, Donald Jones, Kenneth Lofton, Mike
Hamrick, and Jason Nichols in their official capacities.
(#26, #36, #38)[1]
Defendants
have moved to try each of Plaintiffs' claims separately
(#42), and also, to stay all claims against the City until
liability has been established against at least one of the
officers. (#43) They cite Monell v. New York City
Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (2000) in support
of their motion to stay claims against the City. (#43).
Plaintiffs have responded to the motion to sever claims
(#46); and Defendants have replied (#48).
II.
Analysis:
A.
Severing Claims Against Officers
Defendants
contend that, while each Plaintiff's claims are factually
uncomplicated, trying the claims jointly would result in jury
confusion and unfair prejudice. They note that some
Plaintiffs have claims against Officer Faughn; some have
claims against Officer Eskridge; and some Plaintiffs have
claims against both officers. As an alternative to severing
all claims against the officers, Defendants suggest that, at
the least, the Court should try claims against Defendant
Eskridge separately, because only three of the eleven
Plaintiffs assert claims against her.
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) gives courts broad discretion
to bifurcate or sever issues or claims brought in one
lawsuit. A number of factors must be considered in deciding
whether to sever claims, including: judicial economy,
potential prejudice to either party, the likelihood of
inconsistent results, the risk of jury confusion, and the
preservation of constitutional rights. Daniels v. City of
Sioux City, 294 F.R.D. 509, 511 (N. D. Iowa 2013)
(citing O'Dell v. Hercules Inc., 904 F.2d 1194
(8th Cir. 1990). The party moving bears the burden of
demonstrating the need for severance. Id.
Discovery
has barely begun in this case. At this point, it is
impossible for the Court to determine whether there is a
nexus between Officer Faughn's and Eskridge's alleged
misconduct, although several Plaintiffs have stated claims
against both. It is premature to consider whether trying all
claims together would lead to unfair prejudice against one or
both officers. The request to sever claims against the two
officers (#42) is, therefore, DENIED.
B.
Discovery in Claims against City
In
addition to their request to sever claims, Defendants also
ask the Court to stay all claims against the City until after
a determination that one or more of the officers is liable.
This request would unduly complicate the discovery process
and would likely stymie Plaintiffs' ability to gather
facts to support their claims against the individual
officers.
In any
event, the Rules generally allow parties to “obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party's claim or defense” so long as the
discovery requests are proportional, reasonable, necessary,
and not unduly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ .P. 26(b)(1).
While
the Court has broad discretion to stay discovery, the
Defendants, as moving parties, bear the burden to demonstrate
the need for a stay. Defendants contend that neither
party would be prejudiced by a stay of discovery, (#43-1 at
2); but the claims against the individual officers and the
City are so intertwined that it would be difficult for
Plaintiffs to investigate their individual claims if they
were barred from obtaining information from and about the
Mayor, the Chief of Police, and City Council members. Also,
staying discovery on claims against the City would likely
lead to unnecessary delays and duplication of discovery
efforts.
III.
...