You are on page 1of 3

Case 8:12-cv-00568-SDM-MAP Document 102

Filed 08/03/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1120


CHANDA HUGHES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GRADY JUDD, et al., Defendants. ___________________________/ Case No. 8:12-cv-568-T-23MAP

ORDER This § 1983 action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief centers on the juvenile detention conditions at the Polk County Jail. See 42 U.S.C. 1983; doc. 3. At issue currently before the Court is whether the Plaintiffs should be permitted to take the deposition of Sheriff Grady Judd in advance of the upcoming preliminary injunction hearing. The Plaintiffs’ move to compel his deposition (doc. (85); Sheriff Judd opposes the motion (doc. 91). Having considered the parties’ positions, the Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is denied. In his order denying the Sheriff Judd’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the district judge confronted the parties’ divergent interpretations of the amended complaint. See order dated May 4, 2012, at doc. 43. Sheriff Judd read the complaint to be a facial attack of the legislative scheme permitting juveniles to be detained at a county jail; as such, the Plaintiffs were required to seek a writ of habeas corpus and sue the state of Florida. In contrast, the Plaintiffs said their complaint focused on the particular conditions of their confinement, conditions that violated their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees irrespective of location of their detention. The district

2011 WL 1584421 (M. April 26. if he does come within the rule. This rule. I find the Plaintiffs’ have failed to show the requisite need for Sheriff Judd’s testimony at this stage of the proceedings. Fla. Local Rule 4. “he was heavily involved in the decision to move children into the Polk County Jail. a position the district judge accepted. 2011). Judd.2d 510. 1993): high-level governmental officials should not. See also Slone v. The Slone case involved Sheriff Judd. or other person then holding an elective state or federal office. No. With this view of the complaint in mind. including those whose job it is to oversee Polk County’s jails. to seek the Court’s prior permission. To satisfy the rule’s purpose. and the court applied Local Rule 4.Case 8:12-cv-00568-SDM-MAP Document 102 Filed 08/03/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1121 judge resolved the doubt about the complaint’s reading in the Plaintiffs’ favor and denied Sheriff Judd’s motion to dismiss. without saying so specifically. 85 at p. essentially implements the policy considerations the Eleventh Circuit applied in In re United States.” See doc. Plaintiffs’ second reason is at odds with their stance in opposition to Sheriff Judd’s motion to dismiss. It is therefore 2 . Slone’s reasoning applies here. 8:09-cv1175-T-27TGW.08(a)’s policy considerations (despite its omission in citing the rule).” and he “has a unique knowledge of the relevant events surrounding the children’s incarceration. the Plaintiffs gives three reasons: Sheriff Judd is not an officer that would come within the rule (therefore the rule does not apply). have a much better knowledge of both the applicable policies and the facts underlying this cause of action as they relate to Plaintiffs’ claims. Sheriff Judd states “his supervisors and administrators. absent extraordinary circumstances.D.” See doc. 511-512 (11th Cir. 985 F. be required to testify. For these reasons. As to their last reason. 5. 91 at ¶ 3. None of these grounds is persuasive.08(a) requires a party who desires to subpoena any state or federal judicial officer.

85) is DENIED. 3 .Case 8:12-cv-00568-SDM-MAP Document 102 Filed 08/03/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1122 ORDERED: 1. 2012. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Sheriff Grady Judd (doc. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers on August 3.