United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE, GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER, AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS
KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, Eric Stormo, filed this pro se lawsuit naming the City of Sioux Falls, R. Shawn Tornow, Dave Munson, Mike Huether, Pat Kneip, Doug Barthel, and John Doe as defendants. Stormo objects to Magistrate Judge Veronica Duffy’s order (Docket 96) granting in part and denying in part his motion to deem requests for admissions admitted. Docket 101. Stormo again moves to strike discovery responses for defense attorney’s failure to sign the responses. Docket 97. He also moves to amend the scheduling order. Docket 99. For the following reasons, Stormo’s objections are overruled, his motion to strike is denied, and his motion to amend the scheduling order is granted.
Stormo filed his complaint in April 2012. Docket 1. He alleged defendants violated his federal civil rights from 2005 to the present because of his status as a landowner and landlord. Id. The court granted defendants summary judgment in part and denied it in part. Docket 27. After Stormo amended his complaint, he served defendants with various discovery requests. Stormo disagreed with defendants’ responses to his discovery requests and moved to compel discovery. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel. Docket 60.
Stormo requested production of documents from defendants. Docket 30. Request number 9 was for “any and all investigative reports, including internal investigation of complaints resulting from any of the incidents named in Plaintiff’s complaint.” Docket 30-5 at 4. Defendants objected to this request as overbroad and asserted a claim of privilege. Docket 31. The court sustained the objection, ordered defendants to produce the requested documents insofar as they related to incidents involving Stormo or his property, and ordered defendants to prepare a privilege index regarding any withheld or redacted information. Docket 60.
Mr. Stormo’s request number 21 sought the following information:
All records documenting access and the results of access to NCIC, NICS, CJIS, LEO, N-Dix or other nationally, regionally or locally operated law enforcement data repositories where the inquiry was directed at Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s wife or Plainitff’s parents, their property, their finances, their businesses or their vehicles by any City of Sioux Falls law enforcement officer, official, employee, agent, contractor, subcontractor or other party acting at the request of or on behalf of one of the previously named parties.
Docket 30-5 at 6. The district court ordered defendants to produce the unprivileged documents and disclose to plaintiff a privilege log that identified the documents defendants claimed were privileged. Docket 60. Defendants did as the court requested, producing an initial privilege log (see Docket 75-1), then an amended privilege log (see docket 78-3), and finally a second amended privilege log. See docket 91-1.
Stormo filed another motion to compel. Docket 75. The district court referred this motion to Magistrate Judge Duffy. Docket 77. Magistrate Judge Duffy granted in part and denied in part Stormo’s motion to compel. Docket 96. Addressing the second amended privilege log, Magistrate Judge Duffy denied Stormo’s motion to compel as to documents BATES stamped 1-22 because they were protected by attorney client privilege and defendants did not waive this privilege. Id. at 5-12. Additionally, the motion to compel was denied as to documents 23-42 because they were confidential under SDCL 16-19-99. Id. at 12-13. The motion to compel was granted as to documents 42-94. Id. at 13-15. The motion was denied as moot as to documents 95-103 because they were unrelated to the current proceedings. Id. at 15-16. Stormo objects to the denial of his motion as to documents 1-42 but accepts that documents 95-103 are unrelated. Docket 101.
Stormo objects to Magistrate Judge Duffy’s denial of his motion to compel, moves to strike defendants’ discovery responses, and moves to amend the scheduling order.
A. Objections To Magistrate Judge Duffy’s Denial of Stormo’s Motion To Compel
In order for this court to reconsider Magistrate Judge Duffy’s ruling, Stormo must show the “order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). He raises eight objections:
1) The order erroneously accepts argument as fact contrary to the rules of evidence.
2) The order did not require defendants to prove each of the elements required to receive the ...