Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Timothy Mayo v. City of Scranton

February 22, 2012

TIMOTHY MAYO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF SCRANTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caputo

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the Court is plaintiff Mayo's motion to compel answers to interrogatories and requests for production. Defendants ("Scranton") filed objections several months after their answers were due claiming the interrogatories and requests were overly broad and burdensome. The Court will grant Mr. Mayo's motion in part and deny it in part for the reasons discussed below.

BACKGROUND

Timothy Mayo was hired as a police officer by the city of Scranton in 1990 and eventually became a detective. In July 2008, he was suspended and ultimately terminated for dereliction of duty. He was later reinstated. In his complaint, he alleges violation of his due process rights related to his termination. He also alleges that Ray Hayes, Scranton's Director of Public Safety, unlawfully leaked his suspension to the Scranton Times, injuring his reputation and placing him in a false light. His allegations are all brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

After filing suit, Mr. Mayo served interrogatories and production requests on the defendants. These included the following:

(1) Set One, Interrogatory 2 asked defendants to: "Identify each and every person, including telephone number and last known address, who you believe has knowledge of any facts relating to this matter, and give a detailed description of the knowledge possessed by each individual."

(2) Interrogatory 9 asked defendants to: "Identify each complaint, grievance, and/or charge of constitutional violation that has been filed against Ray Hayes, former Police Chief Elliot during their tenure of employment, and identify the substance of the allegations contained in the complaint and/or charge, the identity of the individual making the allegation(s), the date the complaint and/or charge was made, the resolution of the complaint and/or charge, and all documents reflecting such complaint and/or charge."

(3) Another interrogatory asked defendants to: "Identify each complaint, grievance, and/or charge of constitutional violation that has been filed against Ray Hayes, former Police Chief Elliot or his supervisors in the last five (5) years, and identify the substance of the allegations contained in the complaint and/or charge, the identity of the individual making the allegation(s), the date the complaint and/or charge was made, the resolution of the complaint and/or charge, and all documents reflecting such complaint and/or charge."

Mr. Mayo also asked for the following documents in Set One: (4) Any and all training logs, documentation showing Defendant Ray Hayes, former Police Chief Elliot, or any other superiors training related to the policy that officials cannot make public disciplinary allegations from 2000 to present time.

(5) Any and all documents concerning any claim of constitutional violation made by any former or present employee or employment candidate of Defendant from 2003 to the present.

(6) Any and all training documents on constitutional rights, including but not limited t o training logs, sign-off sheets, training material.

In Set Two, Mr. May asked defendants to: (7) "Identify each City of Scranton police officer by name, home address, phone number, title, hire date, who was subject to any allegations of wrongdoing from January 2001 to the present, including description of wrong-doing, and discipline received."

Several months later, defendants objected, claiming these interrogatories and production requests were overly broad and burdensome. Defendants acknowledge their objections were untimely but claim this was unintentional. Mr. Mayo then filed a motion to compel. He claims defendants motions are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.