Johnson v. Knox Cnty. Schs.
Johnson v. Knox Cnty. Schs.
2024 WL 2029196 (E.D. Tenn. 2024)
January 29, 2024
Poplin, Debra C., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The defendant requested a forensic examination of the plaintiff's cell phone to obtain relevant text messages from a specific time frame. The plaintiff objected, stating that the messages had been deleted, but the court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, finding the examination to be necessary in order to obtain the truth and relevant information for the case.
Additional Decisions
SHAQUE JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
KNOX COUNTY SCHOOLS, Defendant
v.
KNOX COUNTY SCHOOLS, Defendant
No. 3:22-CV-136-TRM-DCP
United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Northern Division
Filed January 29, 2024
Poplin, Debra C., United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
*1 This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Limitation on Discovery Scope [Doc. 61], Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and/or Things, Including Electronically Stored Information (ESI) (“Motion to Compel”) [Doc. 66], and Plaintiff's Motion for Limitation on Discovery Scope [Doc. 73]. The motions are ripe for adjudication. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1(a).
The parties appeared before the Court on January 29, 2024, for a motion hearing. Plaintiff appeared pro se. Attorney David Sanders and Attorney Rachel Harrison appeared on behalf of Defendant.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the motions [Docs. 61, 66, and 73].
I. BACKGROUND
The above filings relate to Defendant's request for a forensic examination of Plaintiff's cell phone. Specifically on November 22, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with its Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and/or Things, Including Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) (hereinafter, “Discovery Requests”) [Doc. 66 p. 1]. The Discovery Requests seek:
a. Any and all text messages, instant messages, messages from messenger applications, email, or other indicia of communication between Plaintiff and any person between the dates of January 1, 2021, and April 15, 2023[.]
b. Any and all copies of, indicia of, or references to the recording or attempted recording of Plaintiff's deposition on November 7, 2023[.]c. Any and all records of telephone calls to or from Plaintiff on November 7, 2023.
[Doc. 66 p. 9].
On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Limitation on Discovery Scope, stating that Defendant “has repeatedly sought interpersonal conversations between [himself] and [his] father, implying unfounded suspicions about his involvement in various matters” [Doc. 61 p. 1]. He seeks a “ruling restricting [defense counsel] to obtaining information directly related to the case at hand” [Id.]. In response, Defendant claims that Plaintiff's motion does not comply with Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. 64 pp. 1–2]. Although Defendant is not clear what Plaintiff is actually seeking, it believes that Plaintiff contends that a privilege exists between him and his mother and father and that he wishes to limit discovery based on what Plaintiff believes is relevant [Id. at 2]. To the extent Plaintiff is requesting a protective order, Defendant argues that he has failed to show good cause [Id. at 2–3]. Defendant claims that relevancy is not a proper objection [Id. at 4 (citation omitted)].[2]
*2 Subsequently, on December 27, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion to Compel [Doc. 66], relating to its Discovery Requests seeking a forensic examination of Plaintiff's cellular phone. In response to that motion, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Limitation on Discovery Scope,[3] stating that Defendant keeps inquiring about irrelevant topics [Doc. 73 p. 1]. Plaintiff seeks “a ruling restricting [defense counsel] to obtaining information directly related to the case at hand[ o]r dismiss his broad inquiries into interpersonal conversations and unrelated federal cases” [Id. at 2 (emphasis omitted)].
Defendant filed a reply stating that Plaintiff testified at his deposition that “he felt compelled to run away from home as a result ... of the alleged incident involving assistant principal Crockett” [Doc. 75 p. 2]. In addition, Defendant stated that Plaintiff testified that he was “emotionally damaged because he was alienated from his father due to assistant principal Crockett's alleged actions” [Id.]. According to Defendant, Plaintiff also testified that his “phone deleted all of [his] text messages” [Id. (citation omitted)]. Defendant knows that there are relevant text messages, arguing that Plaintiff's father produced some text messages but not the complete exchange between him and Plaintiff [Id. at 6–7 n.2]. “A forensic examination of Plaintiff's [cell] phone” Defendant argues, “is necessary to get at the truth of Plaintiff's communications with his father concerning the alleged incidents which form the basis of this lawsuit” [Id. at 6]. Defendant states that “an examination may well shed light on Plaintiff's emotional state at various times, which is critical to [its] defense of this case on damages” [Id.]. Defendant also claims that it has questions regarding how Plaintiff's text messages disappeared [Id.]. Defendant points out that Plaintiff was not able to recall many details during his deposition [Id. at 3–6].
At the motion hearing on January 29, 2024, Plaintiff objected to the Discovery Requests, stating that Defendant is not entitled to look at every text message he sent or received for the past two years. Defendant noted that it was narrowing its original Discovery Requests to seek text messages Plaintiff sent and received from Spring 2021 through Summer 2021 that are relevant to this case. According to Plaintiff's testimony, Defendant argued, he seeks emotional damages from the alleged incident, claiming that he ran away from home, which in turn, affected his relationship with his father. Defendant stated that pursuant to the Court's Memorandum and Order [Doc. 68], Plaintiff's father produced some relevant text messages during the time Plaintiff left his home, but the production was incomplete [See also Doc. 71-1]. Plaintiff argued that his father has been a small part of this case and has advocated on his behalf. Plaintiff stated that the cell phone that he was using at that time was an old Android and that about four months ago, he checked to see if there were any text messages on it. Plaintiff stated that there were none and that he did not pay for additional storage. Later, Plaintiff stated that he did not know if he could locate the cell phone because he does not use it anymore.
II. ANALYSIS
The Court finds a forensic examination of Plaintiff's cell phone warranted with the parameters set forth below.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides as follows:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
*3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Courts have explained that the “scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is traditionally quite broad.” Meredith v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 319 F.R.D. 240, 242 (N.D. Ohio 2017) (quoting Lewis v. ACB Bus. Serv., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998)). Courts have cautioned, however, that “[d]iscovery requests are not limitless, and parties must be prohibited from taking ‘fishing expeditions’ in hopes of developing meritorious claims.” Bentley v. Paul B. Hall Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. 7:15-CV-97-ART-EBA, 2016 WL 7976040, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 14, 2016). “[T]he [C]ourt retains the final discretion to determine whether a discovery request is broad or oppressive.” Id. (citing Surles v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007)).
With respect to forensic examinations, courts have recognized “the privacy interests at stake in forensic imaging of personal electronic devices[.]” United States v. Murray, No. 3:18-CR-30018-MGM-1, 2019 WL 1993785, at *5 (D. Mass. May 6, 2019) (citations omitted). While “forensic imaging is not uncommon in the course of civil discovery[,]” John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448, 459 (6th Cir. 2008)(citation omitted), “[c]ourts have been cautious in requiring the mirror imaging of computers where the request is extremely broad in nature and the connection between the computers and the claims in the lawsuit are unduly vague or unsubstantiated in nature.” Balboa Threadworks, Inc. v. Stucky, No. 05–1157–JTM–DWB, 2006 WL 763668, at *3 (D. Kan. March 24, 2006).
Here, the Court finds Defendant's request well taken. Plaintiff sent and received text messages during the Spring and Summer of 2021 that are relevant to the allegations in this case.[4] Plaintiff cannot produce these text messages, and he testified that his cell phone deleted them. The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiff to produce the subject Android cell phone to LBMC P.C. (“LBMC”) by NOON on January 31, 2024.[5][6] LBMC will forensically examine the cell phone and acquire all text messages to/from Plaintiff from March 1, 2021, to September 1, 2021. LMBC will produce a log containing the author, recipient, and date of each text, which according to defense counsel, will be ready for the parties on February 2, 2024. LMBC will also produce the content of the messages but only to Plaintiff. From that production, Plaintiff SHALL produce to Defendant all text messages that relate to the alleged underlying incident with Rod Crockett or any text message relating to the reasons why he left home or that reflect on his emotional state during this time frame (hereinafter defined as, “Relevant Text Message”) on or before February 5, 2024. Should Plaintiff object to producing any text messages, Plaintiff SHALL file the log and include his objections and the basis therefor in CM/ECF by Noon on February 5, 2024.[7]
III. CONCLUSION
*4 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Limitation on Discovery Scope [Doc. 61], Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and/or Things, Including Electronically Stored Information (ESI) [Doc. 66], and Plaintiff's Motion for Limitation on Discovery Scope [Doc. 73]. Specifically, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motions [Doc. 61 & 73] to the extent they seek that the Discovery Requests be limited but grants Defendant's request to forensically examine Plaintiff's cell phone with the parameters set forth above. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to mail and email this Memorandum and Order to Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
The Court notes that Attorney Harrison is not listed as counsel of record in CM/ECF.
Defendant cites to the Court's ruling during Plaintiff's deposition, but as previously explained, Defendant misconstrues the Court's statement [Doc. 68 p. 4 n.4]. During Plaintiff's deposition, he refused to answer questions based on relevancy and the Court directed him to answer the questions at issue as relevancy was not a basis to refuse to answer the question posed [Doc. 64-1].
The Court deemed this to be a response to Defendant's motion [See Doc. 74].
As the Court noted at the hearing, the text messages have been the subject to discovery for quite some time [See Docs. 68, 71-1].
Should Plaintiff not be able to locate the subject Android cell phone, he shall alert defense counsel immediately.
At the hearing, the Court had directed Plaintiff to produce the subject Android cell phone to LBMC by noon on January 30, 2024; however, shortly following the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel notified the Court and Plaintiff via email that LBMC would not be available to receive the cell phone until January 31, 2024.
At the hearing, Defendant requested that the forensic examination also apply to emails and other messaging applications, such as messages sent via social media. The Court finds this broad search not warranted. Defendant noted that Plaintiff had likely produced all the emails. With respect to other forms of messaging, Defendant cited no evidence in the record that Plaintiff used other applications to send messages.