United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
ATLANTIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, Movant: KATHLEEN E.
BOND, LEAD ATTORNEY, Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office,
Mays Landing, NJ.
JANINE COSTANTINO, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: JENNIFER ANN
BONJEAN, LEAD ATTORNEY, BONJEAN LAW GROUP PLLC, BROOKLYN, NY.
CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, POLICE OFFICER STERLING WHEATEN,
Defendants, Cross Defendants: TRACY RILEY, LEAD ATTORNEY,
MICHAEL E. RILEY, LAW OFFICES OF RILEY & RILEY, MOUNT HOLLY,
POLICE OFFICER JOSEPH GAROFALO, RON ANISETTE, DUSK NIGHT CLUB
SECURITY MANAGER, DUSK NIGHT CLUB, DUSK MANAGEMENT GROUP, AC
NIGHTLIFE, LLC, GARY VELORIC, RED STRIPE PLANE GROUP,
Defendants: JOHN ANTHONY UNDERWOOD, LEAD ATTORNEY, UNDERWOOD
& MICKLIN LLC, CHERRY HILL, NJ.
CAESAR'S ENTERTAINMENT CORP., CAESAR'S HOTEL &
CASINO, Defendants, Cross Claimants, Cross Defendants:
RUSSELL L. LICHTENSTEIN, LEAD ATTORNEY, COOPER, LEVENSON, PA,
ATLANTIC CITY, NJ.
NIGHTLIFE, LLC, DUSK MANAGEMENT GROUP, DUSK NIGHT CLUB,
POLICE OFFICER JOSEPH GAROFALO, RED STRIPE PLANE GROUP, GARY
VELORIC, Cross Defendants, Cross Claimants: JOHN ANTHONY
UNDERWOOD, LEAD ATTORNEY, UNDERWOOD & MICKLIN LLC, CHERRY
CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, Cross Defendant: JOHN ANTHONY
UNDERWOOD, LEAD ATTORNEY, UNDERWOOD & MICKLIN LLC, CHERRY
HILL, NJ; TRACY RILEY, LEAD ATTORNEY, LAW OFFICES OF RILEY &
RILEY, MOUNT HOLLY, NJ.
POLICE OFFICER STERLING WHEATEN, Cross Defendant: TRACY
RILEY, LEAD ATTORNEY, LAW OFFICES OF RILEY & RILEY, MOUNT
CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, POLICE OFFICER STERLING WHEATEN, Cross
Claimants, Counter Claimants: MICHAEL E. RILEY, LAW OFFICES
OF RILEY & RILEY, MOUNT HOLLY, NJ.
CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, Cross Defendant: TRACY RILEY, LEAD
ATTORNEY, MICHAEL E. RILEY, LAW OFFICES OF RILEY & RILEY,
MOUNT HOLLY, NJ.
ANISETTE, DUSK NIGHT CLUB SECURITY MANAGER, Cross Claimant:
JOHN ANTHONY UNDERWOOD, LEAD ATTORNEY, UNDERWOOD & MICKLIN
LLC, CHERRY HILL, NJ.
SCHNEIDER, United States Magistrate Judge.
incessant discovery disputes regarding the production of
Atlantic City's Internal Affairs (" IA" ) files
which have plagued the case have gone on long enough. It is
time to end the bickering. The Court will decide once and for
all how many Internal Affairs (" IA" ) files
Atlantic City must produce in discovery. The Court does not
want there to be any ambiguity about its ruling. In short,
plaintiff will get everything she originally asked for.
Atlantic City is ordered to produce all of its IA files from
2003 to December 31, 2014. This totals approximately 2,000
files. In addition to ordering the production
of the files, the parties shall meet and confer to propose a
reasonable schedule to produce the responsive documents. If
the parties are unable to agree the Court will issue an
appropriate order. The parties will be given a reasonable but
short time to agree as the case has already been delayed too
brief summary, after the Court preliminarily indicated that
it would not order Atlantic City to produce all of its IA
files, plaintiff requested 721. However, after extensive
briefing and oral argument, and after hearing the testimony
of the parties' experts and the officer in charge of
Atlantic City's Internal Affairs Unit, the Court is
firmly convinced that Atlantic City should produce all of its
IA files. The files are vital to plaintiff's Monell
claim. Further, the parties' experts agree that in order
to conduct the most accurate and complete analysis of
Atlantic City's IA process, all IA files should be
reviewed. In addition, the complete production will not only
halt the ongoing dispute over what is a " representative
sample" of files, but it will also short circuit
unnecessary evidentiary disputes and motion practice. In
contrast to these benefits Atlantic City has not shown that
it will be unduly burdensome to produce the requested files.
In fact, the opposite is true. And, whatever present burden
results from the Court's Order will be offset by the
future efficiencies and benefits Atlantic City will
background of the case has already been set forth in detail
in other rulings issued in the case. For present purposes
it is enough to know that plaintiff alleges that on July 21,
2012, she was assaulted by security personnel and Atlantic
City police officers at the Dusk Nightclub in Atlantic City,
New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that when she tried to record
the incident Officer Sterling Wheaten not only assaulted her
but also took her cell phone which has not been recovered.
Plaintiff alleges Wheaten taunted her and filed false
criminal charges which were eventually dropped. Plaintiff
filed her § 1983 civil rights complaint naming Atlantic
City and Officers Wheaten and Garafolo on November 1, 2013.
is pursuing a Monell claim against Atlantic City. Plaintiff
intends to show, inter alia, that Atlantic City has a custom,
practice and policy of acquiescing in the habitual use of
excessive force and the filing of false criminal charges by
its police officers which it knew or shown have known would
result in the violation of citizens' civil rights.
Plaintiff contends that Atlantic City's actions
encourage, foster and cause police misconduct. In short,
plaintiff alleges Atlantic City's IA process is a sham.
Atlantic City has only produced the IA files of the two
police officer defendants. The underlying discovery dispute
concerns Atlantic City's objection to producing any
additional IA files. While plaintiff wants to review all of
Atlantic City's IA files, she requested a "
representative sample" of files based on the assumption
that the Court would not order Atlantic City to produce all
of its files. Atlantic City objected to
plaintiff's request and argues that no additional IA
files should be produced. The rub is that while Atlantic City
continues to argue that any conclusions plaintiff's
expert draws from a representative sample is inadequate and
not representative of Atlantic City's conduct, Atlantic
City objects to producing any more IA files. Therein lies the
background information is necessary to put the current
discovery dispute in perspective. Atlantic City and its
police department, and Wheaten in particular, are no
strangers to § 1983 lawsuits in this District. According
to the Court's rough count, Atlantic City is a named
defendant in approximately thirty (30) pending § 1983
cases. This number underestimates the number
of § 1983 cases involving Atlantic City because it does
not include the substantial number of settled or dismissed
cases, or cases tried to verdict, of which there are many.
Indeed, plaintiff's counsel is presently handling five
(5) of these cases. Wheaten is a named defendant in at least
two other pending cases. Not unexpectedly or surprisingly,
Atlantic City has been ordered to produce IA files in
numerous other cases.
too dissimilar case relevant to appreciating the background
of this case is Groark v. Timek, et al., C.A. No.
12-1984 (RBK/JS). The Groark complaint, filed on April 2,
2012, is similar to the spate of other § 1983 civil
rights actions naming Atlantic City and its police officers,
including Wheaten. The case is significant because virtually
all IA related discovery issues decided in Groark are or were
at issue in this case. Groark also " sets the
scene" for the discovery dispute addressed in this
Groark the plaintiff alleged that while he was a patron at
the Dusk Nightclub in Caesar's Casino in Atlantic City on
August 7, 2010, Wheaten and another police officer assaulted
him without provocation. Also like this case, the plaintiff
was arrested and criminal charges were filed which were
eventually dropped. In Groark, Atlantic City initially
objected to plaintiff's request for its IA
files. On November 27, 2013, the Court
granted Groark's motion to compel discovery and directed
Atlantic City to produce (1) the " complete"
Internal Affairs files for the defendant police officers,
including Wheaten (2) all Internal Affairs Index Cards
for the defendant officers; and (3) the complete records and
investigations regarding the August 7, 2010 incident. At
bottom, the Court justified its decision by ruling that the
plaintiff's interest in the requested IA files
substantially outweighed Atlantic City's confidentiality
concerns. Groark I, 989 F.Supp. at 390-94. The Court
also discussed in detail how and why the requested discovery
was relevant to Groark's Monell claim.
Id. at 393.
to its November 27, 2013 decision, Groark requested all of
Atlantic City's IA files from 2003 to the present, not
just those of the defendant officers. The Court estimated
that 1,887 files existed (not including 2013 files). Atlantic
City objected to the request. It also objected to producing
what it referred to as " factually dissimilar
complaints." On July 18, 2014, the Court granted in part
and denied in part Groark's motion to compel discovery.
Instead of directing Atlantic City to produce all of its IA
files, the Court Ordered Atlantic City to produce a "
representative sample of its IA files from January 1, 2003 to
August 10, 2011 (one year post-incident)." See
Groark v. Timek (Groark II), C.A. No. 12-1984
(RBK/JS), 2014 WL 3556367, at *10 (D.N.J. July 18, 2014). The
Court also ruled that plaintiff may discover IA files for all
police officers, not just the named defendants, and IA files
for all serious police complaints, not just the limited
categories Atlantic City requested.
than defining the number of files that comprised a "
representative sample," and hoping that a reasonable
compromise could be worked out, the Court directed the
parties to meet and confer to see if they could agree. After
the parties did not agree, the Court issued its August 14,
2014 [Doc. No. 82] and October 2, 2014 Orders [Doc. No.
96]. Although Groark requested 20% of the
available IA files, or approximately 340 files, and supported
his request with the reports of his consultant, the Court
denied the request. The Court concluded that plaintiff's
request had no adequate support since the sum and substance
of his consultant's methodology was the summary
conclusion that, " I think that a 20% sample of those
files should be adequate to answer the questions that counsel
has raised in our discussions." See Aug. 14, 2014 Order
at 2. The Court also denied Groark's request for 340
files because " plaintiff has already received the most
important IA files in the case" (i.e., those of the
defendant police officers), and that the importance and
relevance of the 340 IA files plaintiff requested was
disproportional to the burden and expense to produce the
files. Id. at 3-4; see also Oct. 2, 2014 Order at 2.
Instead, the Court directed Atlantic City to produce a random
sample of 32 IA files. See Aug. 14, 2014 Order at 7.
back to this case, the Court has already decided most of the
discovery disputes that typically plague Atlantic City's
§ 1983 cases. These include issues such as whether IA
files other than for the July 21, 2012 incident at issue have
to be produced (yes), whether all IA files of the defendant
police officers must be produced (yes), whether all
categories of IA complaints are relevant and not just
excessive force complaints (yes), and whether post-incident
IA files must be produced (yes). The core issue that
now has to be decided is how many IA files should be
produced. Plaintiff wants all of the IA files but in the
alternative is requesting 721. Atlantic City objects to
producing any additional IA files but grudgingly agrees to
important point still needs to be mentioned. As discussed on
numerous occasions with the parties, the reason plaintiff is
requesting additional IA files is because of Atlantic
City's insistence that it reserves its right to argue at
trial that the IA files produced to date are not
representative of its IA process. In other words, that
plaintiff did not review enough IA files to get an adequate
or representative picture of Atlantic City's IA process.
If Atlantic City had agreed that the files produced thus far
are representative, plaintiff did not need or want to review
more IA files. Atlantic City did not agree.
Further, if Atlantic City had agreed that a specific number
of IA files were representative, even if that number is
substantially less than 721, plaintiff would have agreed to
the limited production. Thus, if Atlantic City would have
agreed that the IA files produced to date plus the 32 files
produced in Groark comprised a representative sample,
plaintiff would have limited her request to only 32 IA files.
Atlantic City did not agree. As is its right, Atlantic City
steadfastly refuses to commit to how many IA files comprise a
" representative sample." Thus, it is left to the
Court to determine the number of IA files to be
plaintiff's request the Court held an evidentiary hearing
to address how many IA files should be
produced. Dr. Shane testified for plaintiff.
Lt. Hendricks from the ACPD and Atlantic City's expert,
Dr. Bernard Lentz, testified for Atlantic City. Their
testimony will be summarized, infra.
Relevance of Atlantic City's IA Files
it is beyond peradventure, the Court will provide a brief
background as to why Atlantic City's IA files are
critically important. Plaintiff is pursuing a Monell claim
against Atlantic City. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018,
56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Pursuant to Monell Atlantic City may
be liable for an unconstitutional policy or custom. As to
policy, municipalities like Atlantic City are liable where
" the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional
implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance,
regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by
that body's officers." Id. at 690. As to
custom, municipalities may be sued for " constitutional
deprivations visited pursuant to governmental
'custom' even though such a custom has not received
formal approval through the body's official
decision[-]making channels." Id. at 690-91.
Liability based on a custom rather than a formal adopted
policy proceeds on the theory that the relevant practice is
so widespread as to have the force of law. Board of
County Com'rs. of Bryan County, Okl. v. Brown, 520
U.S. 397, 404, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997). Custom
may also be established by proof of knowledge and
acquiescence. McTernan v. City of York, 564 F.3d
636, 658 (3d Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court has recognized
that where a violation of federal rights is a " highly
predictable consequence" of an inadequate custom in a
situation likely to recur, municipal liability may attach
based upon a single application of the custom. Monaco v.
City of Camden, C.A. No. 04-2406 (JBS), 2008 WL 8738213,
at *7 (D.N.J. April 14, 2008) (citing Board of County
Com'rs, 520 U.S. at 409-10 (1997)).
order to impose § 1983 liability pursuant to a custom,
" plaintiff must show that the municipal action was
taken with the requisite degree of culpability and [there
must be]... a direct causal link between the municipal action
and the deprivation of federal rights." Board of
County Com'rs, 520 U.S. at 404. A pattern or
continued adherence to an approach that a municipality knows
or should know has failed to prevent tortious conduct of
police officers may establish " the conscious disregard
for the consequences of [its] action -- the 'deliberate
indifferences' - necessary to trigger municipal
liability." Id. at 407.
focus of plaintiff's case is Atlantic City's internal
affairs process. The goal of internal affairs " is to
ensure that the integrity of the department is maintained
through a system of internal discipline where an objective
and impartial investigation and review assure fairness and
justice." N.J. Attorney General Internal Affairs Policy
& Procedures (" IAPP" ) (revised July
2014) at 12. " Achieving the desired level of discipline
within the law enforcement agency is among the most important
responsibilities of the law enforcement executive."
Id. at 6. The IAPP recognizes the importance courts
put on the IA function:
[T]he courts, particularly the federal courts, have focused
on the importance of the internal affairs function. They have
come to perceive this function as an important means of
protecting the constitutional rights and civil liberties of
the state's citizens.
Id. at 3. This is understandable since "
indifference to the internal affairs function will have a
negative impact on the administration of criminal justice and
the delivery of police services to New Jersey's
citizens." Id. at 5.
all municipalities in New Jersey, Atlantic City is required
to adopt and implement an internal affairs process to
investigate and resolve complaints of police misconduct. See
generally Groark I, 989 F.Supp.2d at 384-86. The IA process
must (1) provide for a " meaningful and objective
investigation of citizen complaints of police
misconduct" ; (2) monitor and track police misconduct,
and (3) correct officer misconduct. Id. at 384. The
Attorney General requires that certain critical performance
standards be implemented and followed to meet these
requirements. Amongst the standards that must be met are
detailed recordkeeping requirements. If followed, the
requirements will document that a thorough and impartial
investigation was done. Id.
other issues, plaintiff is taking direct aim at Atlantic
City's IA process and its alleged custom of exonerating
and failing to adequately monitor its rogue police officers.
Plaintiff's second amended complaint alleges:
62. Defendant Atlantic City permitted, encouraged, tolerated,
and knowingly acquiesced to an official pattern, practice,
and/or custom of its police officers . . . of violating the
constitutional rights of the public at large, including the
Plaintiff. In particular, the City of Atlantic City had
actual knowledge that defendant had a propensity to deprive
the citizens of Atlantic City, New Jersey of their
constitutional rights and failed to take proper action to
protect the citizens of Atlantic City, New Jersey from
65. Defendant Atlantic City is directly liable for the
Plaintiff's damages due to the following policies,
practices, or customs . . .;
a. [A]llowing police officers . . . to employ excessive force
while effectuating arrests . . . ;
b. [A]llowing police officers . . . to use excessive force
and/or unreasonable force without fear of discipline . . . ;
c. [A]llowing police officers ... to falsely arrest and
charge civilians without probable cause as a tool to conceal
their own illegal and unreasonable conduct . . . ;
d. [A]llowing police officers ... to file false police
reports, fabricate evidence, destroy evidence, and make false
statements . . . ;
e. [F]ailing to protect the Citizens of Atlantic City from
the unconstitutional actions of police officers ... by
exonerating rogue police officers, by refusing to investigate
civilian complaints, and by convincing civilians not to file
formal complaints with the Internal Affairs Unit . . . ;
f. [R]efusing to adequately respond to and investigate
complaints regarding officer misconduct by the citizenry . .
66. Defendant Atlantic City is directly liable for
Plaintiff's damages due to the following policies or
customs of inadequate training, supervision, discipline,
screening, or hiring, which were in effect at the time of
this incident and which were the underlying cause of the
a. [Failing] to adequately train and supervise police
officers . . . regarding proper arrest procedures and
techniques; use of force; probable cause determinations;
criminal investigations; and internal affairs procedures . .
b. [Failing] to adequately monitor and evaluate the
performance of its officers ... and [their] compliance with
the laws and policies, practices and customs with respect to
probable cause determinations, internal affairs procedures,
the use of physical force; arrest procedures, . . . ;
c. [Failing] to properly discipline its officers ... with
respect to violations of the law of the State of New Jersey,
the Constitution of the United States, and its own policies
on use of force, probable cause determinations, internal
affairs procedures, preservation of evidence, and arrest
procedures creating a pattern, policy, practice, custom or
atmosphere where such illegal and unconstitutional behavior
is tolerated, condoned, and accepted by the Atlantic City
Police Department in deliberate indifference to and reckless
disregard of the public at large, including the Plaintiffs;
e. Atlantic City and the Atlantic City Police Department knew
that " a code of silence" existed between and among
their officers and with security personnel employed by
Atlantic City casinos . . . whereby officers would not report
misconduct of other officers to their superiors and failed to
take steps necessary to break the " code of
alleges that because Atlantic City's IA process is a sham
it has a custom of not adequately monitoring and tracing the
performance of individual officers. Further, that because of
the inadequate IA process Atlantic City has a custom of
tolerating and acquiescing in its police officers'
unconstitutional conduct which violates citizens' rights.
If proven, plaintiff's arguments are supported in the
case law. " [T]olerance of unconstitutional conduct is
tantamount to encouragement of such conduct[.]"
Foley v. City of Lowell, Mass., 948 F.2d 10, 14-15
(1st Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Further, " if a city
fails to either punish officers or change procedures after
particularly egregious police conduct, this subsequent
acceptance of the dangerous behavior by the policymaker tends
to prove a preexisting policy." Skibo v. City of New
York, 109 F.R.D. 58, 65 (E.D.N.Y. 1985).
it should be obvious, in order to prove her Monell
allegations it is essential that plaintiff be permitted to
review Atlantic City's IA files. Scouler v.
Craig, 116 F.R.D. 494, 496 (D.N.J. 1987) (" [T]here
can be no question of the relevancy of [the IA files] to the
allegations of the complaint" particularly where the
complaint alleges inadequate supervision and training under
§ 1983.). Indeed, the IA files are vital to
plaintiff's Monell allegations. Groark I, 989
F.Supp.2d at 393. As the Court noted in Groark I, " the
requested IA files are fair game for discovery because they
are directly relevant to plaintiff's claim that Atlantic
City's IA process is a sham and that Atlantic City failed
to properly train its officers." Id. at 394.
This explains the unremarkable fact that production of IA
files is routinely ordered in § 1983 cases.
City's IA process must be " real" and the
investigation " meaningful and objective."
Id. at 386. The mere existence of a grievance
procedure does not protect a citizen's constitutional
rights. Id. at 394. Plaintiff's review of
Atlantic City's IA files will reveal whether in fact the
IA process is a sham. The requested files are also directly
relevant to Atlantic City's defense that its IA
procedures are adequate. Id. at 394. Only by looking
at the content of the IA files can plaintiff learn whether
Atlantic City's investigations were " real,"
" meaningful," and " objective."
Id. Further, plaintiff must review
Atlantic City's IA files to be able to compare the facts
in this case to other cases. This is necessitated by
applicable precedent. According to numerous cases, in order
to make out a Monell claim, plaintiff " must show why .
. . prior incidents deserved discipline and how the
misconduct in those situations was similar to the present
one. Merman v. City of Camden, 824 F.Supp.2d 581,
591 (D.N.J. 2010) (citation omitted); Franks v. Cape May
County, C.A. No. 07-6005 (JHR/JS), 2010 WL 3614193, at
*12 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2010) (" [A] plaintiff must show
why . . . prior incidents deserved discipline and how the
misconduct in those case is similar to that involved in the
present action" ; Katzenmoyer v. Camden Police
Department, C.A. No. 08-1995 (RBK/JS), 2012 WL 6691746,
at *12 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2012). Further, as the Court noted
in Reid v. Cumberland County, 34 F.Supp.3d 396, 403
(D.N.J. 2013), " a plaintiff must show why those prior
incidents deserved discipline and how the misconduct in those
situations was similar to the present one." Plaintiff
cannot satisfy her burden of proving a Monell claim without
looking at the content of Atlantic City's IA files.
Production of the files is critical to plaintiff's case.
Whether 721 IA Files Should be
established that Atlantic City's IA files are relevant
and discoverable, the question then becomes how many IA files
should be produced. The Court concludes that plaintiff has
made a convincing case for why she is entitled to at least
721 files. Taking notice of the Court's decision in
Groark II that it would not direct Atlantic City to produce
all of its IA files, plaintiff retained Dr. Jon M. Shane to
produce a report to help identify " patterns and
practices with respect to Internal Affairs investigations in
the [ACPD]" (Dec. 12, 2012 Tr. 40:4-8), and how many IA
files Dr. Shane needed in order to review a "
representative sample."  Id. 9:2 to
10:19. Shane teaches a graduate level statistical course at
the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Shane was formerly
employed as a longtime member of the Newark Police Department
where he reached the rank of Captain when he retired in 2005.
Shane professes to have detailed knowledge regarding local,
state and national norms regarding Internal Affairs policies.
Dec. 12, 2014 Tr. 39:2-23. Without getting into the nuances
of Dr. Shane's reports and testimony, Dr. Shane
ultimately concluded he needed to review 721 files to do his
analysis. Shane also set forth a procedure to
assure that the 721 files are randomly
proposes to perform two general types of analysis on Atlantic
City's IA files: a process or a qualitative analyses and
a multiple regression statistical analysis. As to the former,
Shane will examine the IA files to evaluate Atlantic
City's compliance with the applicable New Jersey Attorney
General Guidelines for conducting IA investigations. The
statistical analyses will test plaintiff's hypotheses and
determine if certain conduct and actions were predictable. In
general, Shane is " trying to capture . . . the overall
picture of how [Atlantic City's] Internal Affairs
investigations play themselves out." Id.
92:17-19. This will include an analysis of whether Atlantic
City's IA process conforms to state and national norms.
studied Dr. Shane's reports and hearing his live
testimony, the Court finds his testimony sufficient to
justify plaintiff's discovery request. Further,
plaintiff's request is not out of line with IA
productions in other cases. Torres v. Kuzniasz, 936
F.Supp. 1201, 1214 (D.N.J. 1996) (ordering production of
1,200 files); Foley v. Boag, C.A. No. 05-3727 (SRC)
2006 WL 6830911, at *3 (D.N.J. May 31, 2006) (requiring
production of all internal affairs records and complaints
against all police officers in the defendant municipality for
ten (10) years); see also Weller v. Am. Home Assur. Co.,
C.A. No. 05-0090, 2007 WL 1097883, at *4-5 (N.D.W.Va.
2007) (overruling objection despite claim that responding to
discovery would be a " Herculean task" that would
take " at least hundreds of man hours." ).
Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiff's discovery
request asking Atlantic City to produce 721 randomly selected
Atlantic City's Arguments
City makes four general arguments why it should not have to
produce any more IA files. First, Atlantic City argues that
plaintiff must make a " preliminary showing" of
Monell liability before she receives more IA files. In the
alternative, it argues plaintiff's Monell claim should be
bifurcated. In other words, Atlantic City wants
to stop IA discovery in its tracks until after a hearing or
motion regarding whether an adequate " preliminary
showing" has been made, or until after a jury verdict.
Second, Atlantic City argues it is burdensome to produce more
IA files. Third, Atlantic City argues no more than the 32
files produced in Groark should ...