Lawsuit hints at federal probe of JCPD

GREENEVILLE –Court documents mention a "federal public corruption investigation of the Johnson City Police Department" in a sexual assault lawsuit involving Sean Williams.The protective order request was filed Thursday in U.S. federal court on behalf of alleged sexual assault victims in the Sean Wiliams case, seeking to stop plaintiffs from issuing subpoenas.The request does not give specifics to the probe, except that victims' attorneys have complied with requests in representation of "unnamed class members" on the suit."Plaintiffs agreed to search for and produce certain categories of documents requested in the subpoenas, even though they relate to unnamed class members," a footnote in the request states. "For example, Plaintiff's counsel's communications with the prosecution team for the federal public corruption investigation of the Johnson City Police Department, which spanned 520 pages of emails and attachments…"Attorneys for the alleged victims seek to quash subpoenas issued by defendant and former Johnson City Police Capt. Kevin Peters, in a lawsuit against Peters, the city of Johnson City, former Johnson City Police Chief Karl Turner and several other Johnson City police officers.The lawsuit was initially filed last June by nine unidentified women. Since then, six of the nine initial "Jane Does" who filed the suit have switched to being unnamed class members of the class action suit and not representatives.The case relates to Sean Williams, who faces criminal charges related to allegedly taping three children in three separate incidents in pornographic acts. He also faces charges from an escape attempt in October where he was apprehended in Florida.Johnson City, the Johnson City Police Department and police officers face two lawsuits from the Williams case – the one brought by the nine Jane Does and a separate lawsuit brought by former Special Assistant United States Attorney Kat Dahl.The nine women and Dahl accuse the Johnson City Police Department of turning a blind eye toward Williams, who is accused of raping multiple women and children in his downtown apartment. Dahl said her civil rights were violated when she pressed the Johnson City Police Department to investigate Williams and she was fired.Trial rescheduledCourt documents show that a trial scheduled in the Dahl case has been rescheduled from next month until October due to the court not having enough time to look over motions for summary judgments brought by the defendants in the case.The trial is scheduled to be held in Knoxville.The latest filings in the case show that attorneys for Turner and other defendants asked that the courts throw out testimony and evidence gathered in an audit conducted by Eric Daigle of 325 sexual assault cases from 2018 to 2022.The Connecticut-based Daigle Law Group was hired by Johnson City in 2022 to investigate the police department's handling of cases.The report from Daigle's group was released July 2023.Attorneys for Dahl filed opposition to excluding the evidence in the Eastern District of the United States District Court on April 13."The Daigle audit and Mr. Daigle's testimony are devastating to Johnson City and former Chief Turner," the opposition filing states. "But not unfairly so."Order of protectionIn the Jane Doe lawsuit, attorneys Heather Moore Collins, Vanessa Baehr-Jones and Elizabeth Kramer, state in their filing Thursday that Peters "issued overly broad and unduly burdensome subpoenas.""A protective order is required to prevent Peters, or any Defendant, from abusing the discovery process to harass and burden unnamed class members," the request states.The attorneys provided evidence showing the subpoenas asked the nine woman 43 different questions, asking them to provide a multitude of communications from emails to group chats to text messages.The women's attorneys argue that six of the women should not be included in the subpoenas due to not being listed as representatives. They also argue that Peters did not seek the court to serve the subpoenas or negotiate with the plaintiff's attorneys.The attorneys contend responding to the subpoenas would require significant time, expertise and expense, along with technical support."In addition to these burdens, the subpoena's targets will be harassed and traumatized," the request reads.