Objection to Magistrate's Report; Defendant's Response and Objection to Request for Production of Documents

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

WESTERN DIVISION

CLEAMTEE GARNER, father and 
next of kin of EDWARD EUGENE 
GARNER, a deceased minor.

Plaintiff,
VS.
MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT;
CITY OF MEMPHIS, Tennessee; 
WYETH CHANDLER, Mayor of 
Memphis; JAY W. HUBBARD, 
Director of Police of Memphis, 
and E. R. HYMON, Police Officer 
of the City of Memphis,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. C-75-145

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE'S REPORT ON 
REFERENCE CONCERNING DISCOVERY

COME NOW the Defendants, Memphis Police Department, City of 
Memphis, Tennessee, Wyeth Chandler, Jay W. Hubbard, and E. R. Hymon, 
and respectfully object to the Magistrate's Report On Reference 
Concerning Discovery filed in this cause on March 4, 1976, following 
a hearing. In support of their objection. Defendants rely upon 
their Response And Objection To Plaintiff's First Request For 
Production Of Documents which said Response And Objection was filed 
in this cause on November 12, 1975. Copy of same is attached hereto. 
In support of their Objection, Defendants rely upon the cases of 
Brown v. Thompson, 430 F.2d 214 (C.A.5, 1970) and Kott v. Perini,
283 F.Sup. 1 (N.D. Ohio, 1968).

With respect to certain answers given to Interrogatories, 
the Magistrate's Report dealing with Interrogatory 17, propounded 
to Defendant Hymon, states that the answer is not detailed and that 
Defendant Hymon should be required to give a more specific answer 
and supply such information concerning this matter as is not only 
in his possession but in the possession of his attorneys as well.

lOJ



Defendants submit that Defendant Hymon has answered the question 
as best he could and with as much information as he can recall, 
and that there is no requirement that he search certain records 
not in his control to furnish the answer. If the Plaintiff seeks 
further information, he should seek it from other sources. Certainly, 
there is no requirement that Defendant Hymon's attorney furnish 
information he has in his file. As a further note it might be 
added that Defendant Hymon's attorney has no further information in 
his file concerning the answer to this question.

With regard to Interrogatories 25 and 26 to Defendant Hymon, 
Defendants submit that if he did not know the answer to these 
questions relative to insurance, he cannot respond, and he has no 
obligation to seek this information which is readily available through 
the City of Memphis. Further, there is no requirement that the 
attorney be required to furnish information he has in his possession.

Respectfully submitted.

_____________ ___________Henry L. Klein
Staff Attorney, City of Memphis 

Attorney for Defendants 
Suite 3500, 100 North Main Bldg. 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Henry L. Klein, Attorney, hereby certify that a copy of 
the foregoing Objection To Magistrate's Report On Reference Concerning 
Discovery has been mailed to Walter L. Bailey, Jr., Esquire,
901 Tenoke Building, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, and Drew S. Days, III, 
Esquire, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York 10019, this _/6ĵ  
day of March, 1976.

Henr/y L. Klein

2 - 104



.-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

V7ESTERN DIVISION

CLEAMTEE GARNER, father and 
next of kin of EDWARD EUGENE 
GARNER, a deceased minor.

Plaintiff,
VS.

X
X
X
X

I4EMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; X
CITY OF MEMPHIS, Tennessee;
WYETH CHANDLER, Mayor of X
Memphis; JAY W. HUBBARD,
Director of Police of Memphis, X 
and E. R. HYMON, Police Officer 
of the City of Memphis, X

Defendants. X

CIVIL ACTION 
No. C-75-145

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO 
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COME NOW the Defendants, Memphis Police Department, City 
of Memphis, Tennessee, Wyeth Chandler, Mayor of Memphis, Jay W. 
Hubbard, Director of Police of Memphis, and E. R. Hymon, Police 
Officer of the City of Memphis, and in response and in objection 
to Plaintiff's First Request For Production Of Dociaments,' state 
as follows;

1. Defendants object to producing material requested 
in Item 1, Page 2 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that 
the investigation of the Memphis Police Department on or about 
October 3, 1974, is privileged.

2. Defendants object to producing the material requested 
in Item 2, Page 2 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that the 
personnel file on Defendant, E. R. Hymon, is privileged and further 
that said file is inmarerial and irrelevant to this cause of 
action.

■lOo



3. Defendants object to producing the material requested 
in Item 3, Page 2 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that the 
directives referred to are privileged and further that they are 
not material or relevant to this cause of action.

4. Defendants object to producing the material requested 
in Item 4, Page 2 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that the 
directives referred to are privileged and further that they are 
immaterial and irrelevant to this cause of action.

5. Defendants object to producing the material requested 
in Item 5, Page 3 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it
is too vague, too broad, privileged and further that it is irrelevant 
and immaterial to this cause of action.

6. Defendants object to producing the material requested 
in Item 6, Page 3 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that this 
information is privileged and the request is too broad.

7. Defendants object to producing the material set out 
in Item 7, Page 3 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it 
is too broad.

8. Defendants object to producing the material requested 
in Item 8, Page 3 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it
is too broad and further that it is immaterial and irrelevant in 
this cause of action.

9. Defendants object to producing the material set out 
in Item 9, Page 3 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it 
is privileged and further that it is immaterial and irrelevant 
to this cause of action.

10. Defendants object to producing the material set out 
in Item 10, Page 3 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it is 
privileged and further that it is immaterial and irrelevant to this 
cause of action.

11. Defendants object to producing the material set out 
in Item 11, Page 3 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it is

-  2 -
10 G



privileged and that it is immaterial and irrelevant to this cause 
of action.

12. Defendants object to producing the material set out 
in Item 12, Page 3 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it 
is privileged, too broad, and further that it is irrelevant and 
immaterial to this cause of action.

13. Defendants object to producing the material set out 
in Item 13, Page 3 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it 
is privileged, too broad, and further that it is irrelevant and 
immaterial to this cause of action.

14. Defendants object to producing the material set out 
in Item 14, Page 4 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it 
is too broad, it is privileged, and further that it is immaterial 
and irrelevant to this cause of action.

15. Defendants object to producing the material set out 
in Item 15, Page 4 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it 
is immaterial and irrelevant to this cause of action.

16. Defendants object to producing the material set out 
in Item 16, Page 4 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it 
is privileged, too broad, and further that it is immaterial and 
irrelevant to this cause of action.

17. Defendants object to producing the material set out 
in Item 17, Page 4 of Plaintiff's Request on the grounds that it 
is privileged, and immaterial and irrelevant to this cause of 
action.

Dated the / ̂  day of November, 1975.

Hdnry L. Klein
Staff Attorney, City of Memphis 

Attorney for Defendants 
Suite 3500, 100 North Main Bldg, 

Memphis, Tennessee 38103

-  3 - 10;