Paul-Anthony Cononie v. Thomas P. Caulfield, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s ECF No. 41 pleading as immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, and prejudicial. The Court denies Plaintiff’s three motions to compel, finding them either lacking a legal basis, premature because discovery had not commenced, or unrelated to the federal civil rights action, and orders Plaintiff to cease further discovery attempts until authorized.

Holdings

1. The court granted defendants' motion to strike and ordered ECF No. 41 stricken and removed from public view because its contents were immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous, unrelated to plaintiff's claims, and prejudicial to defendants.
2. The motion to compel discovery was denied because defense counsel's statement was permissible argument describing what counsel claimed could be heard in plaintiff's video evidence and provided no legal basis for compelling evidence.
3. The motion to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum was denied as premature because the parties had not conducted their Rule 26(f) conference and no exception, stipulation, or court order authorized early discovery.
4. The motion to compel police-report materials was denied because discovery was premature and the requested materials concerned matters unrelated to the present federal civil-rights action and an unrelated third party.
5. The court ordered plaintiff to cease all attempts to compel production of materials based on the federal case until the court notifies the parties that discovery may commence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether ECF No. 41 should be stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) as immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, and prejudicial.
2. Whether plaintiff could compel discovery based on defense counsel's description of body-worn-camera footage.
3. Whether plaintiff's subpoena-related requests for state-court criminal records were premature before the Rule 26(f) conference and resolution of the pending motions to dismiss.
4. Whether plaintiff could compel production of a police report, photographs, and related materials that were unrelated to the present federal civil-rights action.

Disposition

other