A federal judge Thursday granted the city two more months to produce disciplinary files sought by black officers who claimed they faced racial discrimination in the Baltimore Police Department.
Judge Paul Grimm retreated slightly from his December ruling ordering the city to turn over thousands of disciplinary files in 60 days or face sanctions in the case of Sgt. Louis Hopson.
Instead, the judge presiding over discovery in the lawsuit, which alleges black officers were disciplined more severely for similar offenses than their white counterparts, proposed appointing a “special master” ? a neutral party to oversee the delivery of thousands of disciplinary files plaintiffs say are necessary to prove their case.
“Sanctions at this point would be a professional failure and a failure of creativity,” Grimm said during the hearing.
Grimm?s proposal followed heated arguments from the plaintiffs that the city has failed to provide documents that list the race, rank and outcome of disciplinary proceedings against all city officers from 1992 through 2004.
“I?m skeptical at this point,” Peter Isakoff, attorney for the plaintiffs, told the judge.
Isakoff argued some of the electronic files turned over by the city lacked key information, such as an officer?s race, and whether the disciplinary complaint originated internally or externally. He also cited a letter sent to Grimm in which the city stated it did not keep any hard copies of internal affairs files.
“But they were able to produce those files for the officers we represent,” Isakoff argued.
Lawyers for the city said the letter was misinterpreted.
Karen Hornig, chief attorney for the Police Department, affirmed the city did keep hard copies of all disciplinary files for officers, past and present.
“Yes, we have those,” Hornig told the judge.
City Solicitor George Nilson promised the city would turn over most of the requested documents, provided the plaintiffs took into account confidentiality concerns and did not overly burden the city by requesting a custom database.
Isakoff said he was wary of more promises, citing the city?s admission in 2006 to shredding key disciplinary files protected by a court order.
“We?ve been through this all before,” Isakoff said.
