You are on page 1of 2

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 354 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 2

FILED
Sl'
, S
C" C
., U,S, DISTRICT COURT
UN'11'''I)
r_
,
ATES DI TRI I 'OUR I DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IHSTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Dil'isioll

lOlb MAR- 3 A II: 28

C11.""HI(SOf
(;f:OIH"a: J..\RROIlIl,\HL

I::-.n fl) ST.\ I IS IllS lRICI .nIna:

March 3, 2016

RE: Kimbalill\'.

Frry,

GJlI-13-3059
LETTER OIWER
Dear Counsel

and Mr. Kimberlin:

This leiter addresses


the Court's
subpoena

decisions

Kimberlin's

in its February

11,2016

Motion to Reconsider
Kimberlin

is DENIED.

ofpoliee

materials

department.

in Killg \'.

to Killg, in order to asscrt a claim of state pri\'ilege

to a plaintilTraising

the officer or the police department


from disclosurc

its decision to grant Frey's Motion to

(ECF No. 320) because the Court failed to apply the test established

COlldr. ECF No. 348 at 4. According


the disclosure

(ECF No. 320) and deny Kimberlin's

(lOCI' No. 334). For the reasons that f()lIow. Kimberlin's

argues that the Court should reconsider

Quash Subpoenas

(ECF No, 348), which challen!!es

Leiter Order to grant Frey's motion to quash the

served upon the Los Angeles District Altorney

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

IJowever,

Motion to Reconsider

a ~ 1983 claim against a police defendant.

must show "'that there arc specific harms likcly to accrue


Killg

of specifIc materials:'

King addresses

against

the disclosure

I'.

COJ1dr.121 F.R.D. 180, 189 (E.D.N.Y.

of documents

in posscssion

of onicers

srr hi.. and this Court has only applied King in instances

1988).

or a pol ice

in which production

is

sought fi'OI11the police, srr. r.g .. ,liar/in\'.

Conlla, 287 F.R.D. 348. 351 (D. Md. 2012) ('"Under

Killg, to assert law enl()t"cement privilege,

police must lirst 'make a substantial

showing that there are specillc


(citation omilted)).
Altorney's
Kimberlin's

harms likely to accrue from disclosure

Here, Kimberlin

seeks personnel

of1ice. ECF No. 348. Accordingly,


Motion to Reconsider

Kimbcrlin
Amend Complaint

of specific materials:"

files from the Los Angeles

the test establishcd

District

in King is inapplicable

ancl

the Orcler relatin!! to Frev's Motion to Quash is DENIED.


.

also argues that the Court erred in denying Kimberlin's


(ECF No. 334). Kimberlin

argues that "contrary

I'lainti ff did, on June I I, 2015, notifY the Court and Defendant


County as a party:'

threshold

i'vlotion

to the Court's

I(l!"

Lem'e to

ruling,

Grcy that he would be adding LA

ECF No. 348 at 2. lie also argues that his dccision to amend at this point is

based on new inlllfl11ation. Id How'ever. as the Court noted in its February

1 I. 2016 I.etter

Case 8:13-cv-03059-GJH Document 354 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 2

Order, the Court reminded Kimberlin on two prior occasions that "no further amendments [to thc
Complaint] will be permitted." See ECF No. 88 at 5: ECF No. 133. Additionally. on June 11.
2015, Kimberlin notified the Court that he intended to add the LA District Attorney's Oftice. see
ECF No. 286, but he failed to move for joiner of party and amendment of pleadings by the June
15.2015 deadline, see ECF No. 279 at 2. Accordingly. Kimberlin's Motion to Reconsider the
Order relating to his Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is DENIED.
Although informal. this is an Order of the Court and shall be docketed as such.

GEORGE 1. HAZEL
United States District Judge