UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

CHATTANOOGA

SHANDLE MARIE RILEY, §

§ Case No. 1:19-cv-304
Plaintiff, § Judge Travis R. McDonough
§ Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger
~v~ § JURY DEMANDED
§ Consolidated
HAMILTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT, § 1:19-cv-198
§ 1:19-cv-305
DANIEL WILKEY, § 1:19-cv-329
individually and in his capacity as deputy sheriff § 1:19-cv-348
for Hamilton County Government, and § 1:20-cv-16
§ 1:20-cv-17
JACOB GOFORTH, § 1:20-cv-19
individually and in his capacity as deputy sheriff § 1:20-cv-20
for Hamilton County Government, § 1:19-cv-44
§
Defendants. §

SUPPLEMENT TO
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY
SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 37 SHOULD NOT
BE AWARDED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Consolidated Plaintiffs1 (“Plaintiffs”), through counsel, in support of Motion for Show Cause as

to Why Sanctions under Rule 37 Should not be Awarded or in the Alternative for a Protective Order

(Doc. 143), and as a supplemental affidavit in support of their Memorandum of Law in support of their

motion (Doc. 144) attaches the affidavits of District Attorney General Neal Pinkston, Wendi Sloop, and

Plaintiff Aviana McKenzie.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION

1
The undersigned represents all of the Plaintiffs with the exceptions of Plaintiffs Klaver and Jarnigan.
~1~

Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1332

 Plaintiffs will point to two motions filed by two defendants to illustrate the issues Plaintiffs raise

in regard to the show cause motion.

Recently, Defendant Brewer (“Brewer”) filed to amend his answers. Brewer specifically

references videos from his patrol car and compares them to the videos from Defendant Wilkey’s patrol

car as follows:

In support of this motion, Brewer would show to the court that at the time of his
original answer he and his counsel did not have access to the dash camera video
from Brewer’s patrol car that shows a wide angle shot of the entire series of
events. Wilkey’s (hereinafter referred to as “Wilkey”) patrol car dash camera
video had a very restricted view of the events as the Plaintiff Mitchell was being
searched on the hood of his car. Many of the events that occurred cannot be seen
on this view. This event happened approximately six months before he was asked
to answer this complaint containing over one hundred and fifty (150) paragraphs.
Counsel would show to the court that being able to view the video of the entire
series of events, search, and arrest of the Plaintiff and to conduct additional
investigation has brought information to his attention that justifies these defenses
being asserted. Counsel has now had the opportunity to review the video from
Brewer’s patrol car with a law enforcement training expert and discuss the events,
reasons for Brewer’s actions in using force on Mitchell, and the actions of
Mitchell and whether those actions justified use of force by Brewer.
(Doc. 1322 at PageID #: 752) (emphasis added).
Defendant Tyler McRae (“McRae”) has also moved to amend his answers to the five minors

who’ve brought suit in this consolidated action. In nearly each motion and memorandum, McRae

references Wilkey’s dash-cam videos he (McRae) did not have at the time he filed his initial answer.

(Doc. 120 at PageID #: 703). McRae also concedes that Wilkey’s video does not show the searches of

the minors (other than Plaintiff Aviana McKenzie). (Id.).

2
Citations are to Riley v. Hamilton County Government, et al., No. 1:19-cv-304.
~2~

Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176 Filed 06/29/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1333

 Plaintiff Aviana McKenzie has provided an affidavit and drawing to show the position of

McRae’s videos. (Aff. McKenzie).

Wendi Sloop reviewed videos obtained as discussed in Document 144. (Aff. Sloop). She was

unable to located any videos from McRae’s patrol car. (Id.).

District Attorney General Neal Pinkston (“Pinkston”) has provided an affidavit that will speak

for itself. (Aff. Pinkston). Plaintiffs will highlight certain portions of Pinkston’s sworn statements:

¶ 7-9 Pinkston attempted to obtain files from Internal Affairs (Ham. Co. Sheriff) in regard to

Plaintiff (A.O.K.)3 (Id.). On September 4, 2019, Pinkston was directed to the Criminal Investigations

Division (CID) who notified Pinkston that there was an on-going investigation and that Pinkston could

not have the files until completion of the investigation, and as of the date of Pinkston’s affidavit he has

not received either the IA or CID files. (Id.).

ADDITIONAL CONCLUSION

Given the state of what the County has done in regard to the videos, it seems that the County has

taken steps to obstruct an investigation by the District Attorney General. It is not a reach to conclude the

same in this matter. Again, Plaintiff’s urge this Court to enter a default or grant the relief requested in

their motion (Doc. 143).

Respectfully submitted,

3
Abigail Knox. (Doc. 172).
~3~

Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176 Filed 06/29/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1334

 By: /s/ Robin Ruben Flores______
ROBIN RUBEN FLORES
TENN. BPR #20751
GA. STATE BAR #200745
Counsel for Plaintiffs
4110-A Brainerd Road
Chattanooga, TN 37411
423 / 267-1575 fax 267-2703
robin@robinfloreslaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have delivered a copy of this motion to all persons noted on the electronic filing
receipt and so delivered on the date and time shown on the same receipt.

By: s/ Robin Ruben Flores

~4~

Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176 Filed 06/29/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1335

Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-1 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
1336
Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-1 Filed 06/29/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
1337
Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-1 Filed 06/29/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
1338
Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-2 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
1339
Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-2 Filed 06/29/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
1340
Case 1:19-cv-00304-TRM-CHS Document 176-3 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:
1341