Johnson v. Rankin
| Jerrell R. Johnson |
| Stephen D. Rankin |
| 2:2011cv00415 |
| July 22, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Norfolk Office |
| Virginia Beach City |
| Douglas E. Miller |
| Rebecca Beach Smith |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
110
MEMORANDUM ORDER - The Court ORDERS that Exhibit 6 to the Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs First Motion in Limine shall bemarked confidential, and placed "under seal" with this Court. The Court recognizes that at som e point, the VSP will likely conclude its investigation. However, once the litigation in the instant civil case has been finalized,including any potential appeals, the Clerk's office shall return the documents to the Defendant rather than unseal ing the items. Once returned to the Defendant, pursuant to paragraph four (4) of this Court's November 7,2011, protective order, the Defendant is under a duty to destroy the documents or return them to VSP. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller and filed on 3/2/12. (jcow, )
|
|
Filing
83
OPINION that the court DENIES the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on all grounds. Signed by District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 2/16/12. (jcow, )
|
|
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM OPINION - granting document numbers 46 and 50 , motions to seal; the Court ORDERS that Exhibits 4 and 9 to the Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Exhibit 1 to theDefendant&# 039;s reply be marked confidential and remain "under seal" with this Court. In addition, the sealed version of Defendant's reply may remain sealed as the modestly redacted public version (ECF No. 53) is adequate to inform the public of the issues presented. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller and filed on 2/6/12. (jcow, )
|
|
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM ORDER as to motion to quash; Tab A-l, Summary of Investigation.The Document behind Tab 1 constitutes the VSP's investigative summary, directed to Portsmouth Commonwealth's Attorney Earl C. Mobley. It is an evaluative summary cont aining the impressions of its authors concerning the evidence described. In addition, most of the factual material describedin the document is available in other, separately categorized materials. Accordingly, the VSP's motion to quash is grante d as to A-l, which will not be produced. Tab B-l, Portsmouth Police Department Reports A number of documents behind B-l concern investigative materials prepared by the Portsmouth Police Department. Because these materials were obtained from Portsmo uth Police Department, which has raised other objections to their production, the Courtdeclines to order their production from the VSP file pending argument on Portsmouth's separate motion. Tabs C-l through C-4, Crime Scene ExaminationThe four documents contained under the category "Crime Scene Examination", reflect objective analysis of the physical condition of the scene where the incident occurred. All of the information in document C-l through C-4should be produced, subject to the Protective Order. Tabs D-l through D-4, Lab Reports All of the documents in section D involve postmortem testing and examination of the decedent, Denyakin, no factor warrants withholding themand they will be produced subject to the Protective Order. Tabs E-l through E-6, Rankin Materials Materials in section E relate to the defendant, OfficerStephen Rankin, documents E-1 and E-5 will be produced subject to the protective order. Documents E-2 and E-6 will be produced subject to the prot ective order. Documents E-3 and E-4 may be withheld and VSP's motion to quash is granted in part with respect to E-3 and E-4. Tabs F-l through F-3, Denyakin Materials The materials in section F also relate to the decedent,Kirill Denyakin. F-l is a report concerning the investigator's review of video footage from security cameras near the scene. F-2 contains a search warrant and return for records related to the emergency medical treatment by those who responded to the incident. The third document, F-3, is a summary of informationobtained from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement concerning Denyakin's immigration status. These documents present purely factual data. Although the report of video evidence in F-2 contains the i nvestigator's observations of a person believed to be Denyakin, they amount to only a description of his physical condition without subjective characterization. In addition, thevideo evidence itself is available in the event any party disagrees with the investigator's characterization. The report contains useful time-stamped data concerning Denyakin's suspected appearance in the footage and it, along with the other two factual documents in section F, will be produced subject tothe Protective Order. Tabs G-l through G-23, Witness Interviews. Documents in section G include summaries of witness interviews conducted by VSP's Chief Investigator between May 5 and May 31, 2011. The witness statements with the witnesses' dates of birth and phone numbers redacted shall be produced subject to the Protective Order. Tabs H-l through H-20, Police Statements. H-l through H-20 will be produced, subject to the Protective Order. Tabs 1-1 through 1-6, Chain of Custody and R equest for Examinations, they will also beproduced subject to the terms of the Protective Order. Tabs J-l through J-16, Audio/Video and Other Evidence. The evidence included in the J-l through J-9 be produced subject to the terms of the Protective Order. The VSP's motion to quash is granted with regard to J-10. The VSP's motion to quash isgranted with respect to J-ll and J-12. J-13, J-14, J-15, J-16 and J-17 must be produced subject to the Protective Order. Tabs K-l through K-5, Additional Material, the undersigned declines to order the production of any of the documents addressed in K-l through K-12. Subject to the terms of the Protective Order entered this day, the undersigned directs the VSP to produce the foregoing mate rials to Plaintiff's counsel within ten (10) days of thisOrder. Costs for copying and duplication shall be paid by Plaintiff's counsel. The materials submitted for in camera review may be retrieved from chambers by the VSP for use in making necessary copies. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller and filed on 11/7/11. (jcow, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Johnson v. Rankin | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Stephen D. Rankin | |
| Represented By: | Dawn Lee Serafine |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jerrell R. Johnson | |
| Represented By: | Christopher Lon Daughtry |
| Represented By: | Carlton F. Bennett |
| Represented By: | Craig Stewart Gill, Jr. |
| Represented By: | John Dillard Hooker, Jr. |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
