Sheets v. Presseller

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: January 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00495
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

ANDREW BRYANT SHEETS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-CV-495-JLB-KCD v.

JERRY PRESSELLER, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; OFFICER DAVID JOSEPH LIPKER, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CITY OF PUNTA GORDA, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND PUNTA GORDA DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Defendants, /

ORDER Plaintiff Andrew Sheets sues under the First Amendment to challenge his trespass from a local farmers market. (Doc. 18.) According to Sheets, he had an irrevocable right to conduct “journalistic activities” on the public property where the farmers market was held. (Id. ¶ 21.) Sheets is unhappy with Defendant Jerry Presseller’s discovery responses. According to Sheets, Presseller “made materially false and misleading statements regarding his actions and involvement in Plaintiff’s repeated trespassing and interference with his constitutionally protected First Amendment activities[.]” (Doc. 89 at 1.) Presseller’s discovery responses are apparently “contradicted by video evidence and . . . recorded statements.”

(Id.) Sheets thus seeks discovery sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, including an adverse inference against Presseller and referral “for a potential perjury investigation.” (Id. at 2.) The Court will not impose sanctions at this time. Sheets is contesting

the veracity of Presseller’s version of events. But what led to Sheets’ trespass is highly disputed and must be resolved by the fact-finder, not this Court through the guise of discovery sanctions. Sheets, of course, is free to present evidence that undermines Presseller’s credibility and disproves his version of

events. The Court cannot, however, put its thumb on the scale and decide the truth at this stage. See, e.g., Qiu v. Bd. of Educ. of Scott Cnty., Kentucky, No. 521CV00197GFVTEBA, 2022 WL 18587705, at *6 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 9, 2022) (“The way to challenge Defendant's evidence, however, is not by filing

accusatory and baseless motions into this Court's record. Such motion practice is not appropriate. Instead, a party should seek additional discovery that support her claims or refute claims asserted by the opposing party.”). Accordingly, Sheets’ motion for discovery sanctions (Doc. 89) is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 6, 2025.

L fe LeZT ¥fle C. Dudek” United States Magistrate Judge