Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Shultz v. Allegheny County

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

March 31, 2014

LUANN GILLESPIE SHULTZ, as Administratrix of the Estate of Amy L. Gillespie, Deceased, Plaintiff,
v.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY; ALLEGHENY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; RAMON C. RUSTIN; DANA PHILLIPS; JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 5, individuals employed as medical staff at the Allegheny County Jail whose identities cannot presently be determined; and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 6 THROUGH 10, individuals employed as Corrections Officers and Supervisors at the Allegheny County Jail whose identities cannot presently be determined, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

DAVID STEWART CERCONE, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2014, upon due consideration of [133] defendants Allegheny County Correctional Health Services, Inc. ("ACCHS") and Dana Phillips' emergency motion to quash subpoena and [134] plaintiff's response thereto, IT IS ORDERED that [133] the motion be, and the same hereby is, denied. Defendant ACCHS shall produce employee Valerie Slepsky for deposition at a time mutually convenient for the parties on or before April 4, 2014.

A defendant is required to produce its employees for deposition upon notice of deposition. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial to be discoverable; what is required is that the discovery appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. Post-event evidence may be admissible for purposes of proving the existence of a policy or custom. See Monaco v. City of Camden, CIV.A. 04-2406, 2008 WL 8738213 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2008) ("multiple courts have held that post-event evidence is not only admissible for purposes of proving the existence of a municipal defendant's policy or custom, but [it may be] highly probative with respect to that inquiry.'" (quoting Henry v. County of Shasta , 132 F.3d 512, 519 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Beck v. City of Pittsburgh , 89 F.3d 966, 973 (3d Cir. 1996) (post-incident evidence "may have evidentiary value for a jury's consideration [of] whether [policymakers] had a pattern of tacitly approving the use of excessive force").


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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