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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

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 Judds 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

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 complaints reading in the Plaintiffs favor and denied Sheriff Judds motion to dismiss. With this view of the complaint in mind, Local Rule 4.08(a) requires a party who desires to subpoena any state or federal judicial officer, or other person then holding an elective state or federal office, to seek the Courts prior permission. This rule, without saying so specifically, essentially implements the policy considerations the Eleventh Circuit applied in In re United States, 985 F.2d 510, 511-512 (11th Cir. 1993): high-level governmental officials should not, absent extraordinary circumstances, be required to testify. See also Slone v. Judd, No. 8:09-cv1175-T-27TGW, 2011 WL 1584421 (M.D. Fla. April 26, 2011). To satisfy the rules purpose, the Plaintiffs gives three reasons: Sheriff Judd is not an officer that would come within the rule (therefore the rule does not apply); if he does come within the rule, he was heavily involved in the decision to move children into the Polk County Jail, and he has a unique knowledge of the relevant events surrounding the childrens incarceration. See doc. 85 at p. 5. None of these grounds is persuasive. The Slone case involved Sheriff Judd, and the court applied Local Rule 4.08(a)s policy considerations (despite its omission in citing the rule). Slones reasoning applies here. Plaintiffs second reason is at odds with their stance in opposition to Sheriff Judds motion to dismiss, a position the district judge accepted. As to their last reason, Sheriff Judd states his supervisors and administrators, including those whose job it is to oversee Polk Countys jails, have a much better knowledge of both the applicable policies and the facts underlying this cause of action as they relate to Plaintiffs claims. See doc. 91 at 3. For these reasons, I find the Plaintiffs have failed to show the requisite need for Sheriff Judds testimony at this stage of the proceedings. It is therefore 2

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

Filed 08/03/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1122

ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel the Deposition of Sheriff Grady Judd (doc. 85) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers on August 3, 2012.