O'Neill v. Springfield
| Decision Date | 11 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 3:20-30036-MGM |
| Parties | MAURA O'NEILL, as administrator of the Estate of Madelyn E. Linsenmeir, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, et al. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE DISCIPLINARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANTS ZANAZANIAN AND CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
Plaintiff Maura O'Neill (Plaintiff) represents the estate of her deceased sister, Madelyn Linsenmeir (Linsenmeir) ). Linsenmeir was arrested by the Springfield Police Department (SPD) on September 29, 2018, on charges of being a fugitive from a New Hampshire warrant and giving a false name (Am. Compl. ¶ 26). On September 30, 2018, the SPD transferred Linsenmeir to the custody of the Women's Correctional Center, which is operated by defendant Hampden County Sheriff's Department (HCSD) (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 62). She died of endocarditis at Baystate Medical Center on October 7, 2018, still in the custody of the HCSD (Compl. ¶¶ 71-75). Plaintiff brings claims of unconstitutional failure to provide medical care against the defendant City of Springfield (City), individuals employed by the SPD, and the HCSD (Counts I and III); violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act against the HCSD (Count II); and wrongful death against individual defendants employed by the SPD and the HCSD (Count IV).
Before the court is Plaintiff's motion to compel the City to produce documents that the City contends are protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine and for additional testimony from William Mahoney (Mahoney), a Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) (Rule 30(b)(6)) designee of the City concerning the contents of those documents. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants Plaintiff's motion in part and denies it in part.
Defendant Moises Zanazanian (Zanazanian) was the SPD booking officer when Linsenmeir was brought to the police station after her arrest (Am. Compl. ¶ 35). Linsenmeir's booking video shows that she told Zanazanian that she had really bad chest pain, could not breathe, and that it felt as though her chest was caving in (Dkt. No. 110 at 7-8). Zanazanian testified at his deposition that he gave Linsenmeir water, assessed her condition, decided she did not need medical care, and did not send her to the hospital or provide medical treatment (Dkt. No. 110 at 8-9; Dkt. No. 111-4 at 5).
On December 28, 2018, the SPD notified Zanazanian in writing that the department had received notice of alleged improper conduct by him on September 29, 2018, in connection with Linsenmeir's booking. The notice, captioned Notice of Inter-Departmental Disciplinary Charges, SO# 18-261, charged Zanazanian with possible violations of four SPD rules and regulations, including neglect of duty in violation of Rule 27; unbecoming conduct in violation of Rule 29; failure to comply with all SPD rules, orders, and directives in violation of Rule 29; failure to provide medical attention to an arrested person in violation of Rule 26; and notified him of punishments that could be imposed under Rule 32 for a variety of offenses, including neglect of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer, or an act contrary to good order and discipline of the department (Dkt. No. 111-20 at 2-3).
Mahoney was an attorney and head of the City's labor relations at the relevant time. On February 27, 2019, Sergeant Monique McCoy (McCoy) of the SPD Internal Investigation Unit (IIU) sent an email to Mahoney referencing SO# 18-261 and the ACLU and Linsenmeir in its subject line, noting that the case was scheduled to go to hearing on March 20, 2019, and informing Mahoney that McCoy had been told to refer the case to Mahoney because, as she understood the situation, the Springfield Police Supervisors Association (Union) was looking to come to an agreement on the case (Dkt. No.111-21 at 2). Thereafter, on March 13, 2019, Zanazanian signed an agreement between himself, the City, and the Union resolving the December 2018 notice of disciplinary charges against him arising out of the booking of Ms. Linsenmeir (Dkt. No.111-24) (Disciplinary Memorandum). Attorney John Vigliotti (Vigliotti) represented Zanazanian and the Union in negotiations about the terms of the Disciplinary Memorandum. SPD Captain Brian Keenan (Keenan) was the President of the Union and the designated point person for negotiations regarding Zanazanian (Dkt. No. 110 at 13). The City produced a copy of the final agreement to Plaintiff and a copy of a separate notice to Zanazanian of suspension without pay (Dkt. No. 111-27) and designated Mahoney to testify about the City's (or the SPD's) investigation and discipline of Zanazanian related to the facts alleged in Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 113 at 2).
The City declined to produce certain documents related to the agreement between the City, Zanazanian, and the Union and the notice of suspension directed to Zanazanian. Those documents are listed below with numbers corresponding to the numbers in the City's privilege log:
After Mahoney's deposition, in response to an inquiry from Plaintiff, the City informed Plaintiff that Mahoney reviewed items 1, 5, 7, 9, 35, 57, and 61 from its privilege log, along with any attachments to these items, in preparation for his testimony as one of the City's designated Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses (Dkt. No. 113-1 at 2-3).
At the City's request, and with the assent of Plaintiff, the court reviewed the documents that are the subject of Plaintiff's motion to compel in camera. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mr. S.), 662 F.3d 65, 70 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 569 (1989)) (endorsing a trial court's in camera review for the purpose of determining whether documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege).
Plaintiff contends that the documents the City has declined to produce on grounds of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are relevant because the records bear on the City's internal review of Zanazanian's interactions with Linsenmeir, its training and supervision of its police force, and its customs concerning investigation and discipline when an officer is alleged to have violated SPD rules and regulations. Plaintiff relies on Bordanaro v. McLeod, 871 F.2d 1151 (1st Cir. 1989), in which the plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive use of force by police officers. In affirming the verdict for the plaintiffs, the First Circuit pointed to evidence that the City of Everett's discipline of police officers had been haphazard, inconsistent, and infrequent, that Everett had not conducted a full investigation of the events about which the plaintiffs complained for more than a year after those events occurred, and that the police chief did not seriously investigate police misconduct complaints. Id. at 1160. In the Disciplinary Memorandum, the City, the Union, and Zanazanian agreed that there was just cause for the imposition of discipline on Zanazanian for a violation of Rule 29 and imposed a two-day suspension (Dkt. No. 111-24 at 2-3). This resolution of the City's investigation into “an incident surrounding the arrest and booking of an individual, Ms. Madelyn Linsenmeir, on or about September 29, 2018” (Dkt. No. 111-24 at 2), did not include a finding that Zanazanian had violated Rule 26 or Rule 27 of the SPD rules and regulations, both of which were referred to in the initial disciplinary notice issued to Zanazanian. The Disciplinary Memorandum did not set forth a factual basis for its finding of just cause for discipline. Several deponents, including Zanazanian, were uncertain about why Zanazanian was disciplined and contradicted themselves and each other about the nature of his misconduct and the factual basis of the discipline imposed on him (Dkt. No. 110 at 18).
Plaintiff argues that the records are not protected by the attorney-client privilege because Zanazanian and the Union were adverse to the City in the disciplinary process and communications between adverse parties, or between a party and his attorney when the information is intended to be disclosed to an adverse party, are not protected by the attorneyclient privilege or the work product doctrine. Further, Plaintiff argues, even if some or all of the documents on the City's log were privileged or otherwise protected, the City waived any claim to confidentiality when Mahoney reviewed documents in preparation for his deposition.
For its part, the City does not contest the relevance of material related to the discipline imposed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial