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.

Giles v. City of Lincoln

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

May 15, 2019

BRIAN GILES, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LINCOLN, in their individual and official capacities.; TOM CASADY, in their individual and official capacities.; TIM LINKE, in their individual and official capacities.; ERIC JONES, in their individual and official capacities.; and PATRICK BORER, in their individual and official capacities.; Defendants.

          ORDER

          Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge.

         In Filing No. 109, Plaintiff Brian Giles (Giles), sought reconsideration of the undersigned magistrate judge's Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 75), and amendment of the parties' agreed discovery deadlines (Filing Nos. 91-92). The parties filed a Joint Stipulation Regarding Extension of Deadlines on April 23, 2019. (Filing No. 121). As explained below, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be granted, in part. The parties' joint request for extension of certain deadlines is granted, as set forth in further detail below.

         I. Background

         In September 2018, this court considered defendants' Motion for a New Progression Order Allowing for Phased Discovery (Filing No. 45), and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Filing No. 48), and the associated briefs and documentation. The court found that Defendants made a sufficient showing that Plaintiff's discovery was extensive and that responding to such discovery was a substantial burden.

         The undersigned magistrate judge found:

[T]he proper and proportional course is staged discovery, with the first phase focused on whether a causal link exists between Plaintiff's alleged protected activity and the alleged adverse employment actions or injuries. At this first stage, the discovery will be limited as follows:
1) Plaintiff's depositions of witnesses other than Linke will be limited to (a) what those witnesses knew, if anything, about Plaintiff's alleged protected activity prior to December 1, 2015, and (b) if prior to December 1, 2015, they communicated with Linke regarding his selections for promotion to Battalion Chief, and if so, what they said.
2) As to telephone records, Plaintiff may subpoena the Verizon records of incoming and outgoing calls and text messages for the cell phones used by Jones and Linke for the 2015 calendar year.
3) As to (ESI), Plaintiff is entitled to:
• All emails to or from Giles from October 2014, when Benson transferred to Station 8, and December 31, 2015.
• The emails of Linke and Jones between October 2014 and December 31, 2015 that contain the key words “Giles” and/or “Brian Giles”, and/or “Promotion” and/or “Promotional” and/or “Benson, ” and/or “Battalion Chief.”
4) Plaintiff is not entitled to Defendants' EEO investigatory file for Amanda Benson's complaint, such complaint and associated investigation having occurred after both Battalion Chief promotions were made.

(Filing No. 75 at CM/ECF pp. 6-7).

         Giles objected to Filing No. 75 (Filing No. 79), and upon consideration of the motion and the briefing, Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf overruled Plaintiff's objection. (Filing No. 84).

         The parties filed stipulations to extend certain case progression deadlines on January 4, 2019 (Filing No. 91) and March 19, 2019 (Filing No. 102), both of which were granted by the court. (Filing No. 92, Filing No. 105) In each stipulation, Giles asserted he did “not agree that the phased discovery or the expected summary judgment on the causal link as provided for in the Order (Doc #75) is appropriate or supported under federal law or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Filing Nos. 91, 102).

         Giles' motion for reconsideration and motion to amend the stipulated progression order deadlines was filed on March 22, 2019. (Filing 109). The parties filed a Joint Stipulation Regarding Extension of Deadlines on April 23, 2019. (Filing No. 121).

         II. Analysis

         A. ...


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.