The city of Topeka and five police officers have withdrawn their request that a federal judge impose sanctions on plaintiff Da'Mabrius Duncan and attorney LaRonna Lassiter Saunders.

Duncan and Lassiter Saunders were accused of violating a protective order linked to a lawsuit over the fatal 2022 police shooting of Topekan Taylor Lowery.

But attorneys Nicholas Jefferson, representing the city, and Jeffrey Kuhlman, representing the officers, also asked that the case's rules be tightened regarding the release of evidence and information.

They made that request in a federal court document filed Monday in Topeka.

Lawsuit is linked to death of man police shot at 34 times

The case is being heard by U.S. Magistrate Judge Angel Mitchell, who ordered Lassiter Saunders and Duncan Feb. 5 to explain why she shouldn't impose sanctions.

Shawnee County District Attorney Mike Kagay ruled the officers were justified Oct. 13, 2022, in firing 34 shots at Lowery, whom he said carried a knife when he was first shot, dropped the knife, then carried a wrench when he was shot again.

Overland Park attorneys William and Paeten Denning in August 2024 filed the lawsuit on behalf of Lowery's daughter, identified only as "L.L.," and her mother, Duncan, who is special administrator for Lowery's estate.

An amended version of the initial complaint, filed Jan. 14, identifies defendants in addition to the city as being Topeka police officers Malcolm Gillum, Justin Good and Bradley Netherton, Sgt. Scott McEntire and detective Alex Wall.

Lassiter Saunders is "purportedly representing Duncan" but is not an attorney of record in the suit, Mitchell's Feb. 5 order said.

Protective order was issued in December

Mitchell ruled Dec. 13 that the city may not designate the entirety of the police bodycam video taken at the scene as confidential during the case's discovery process, in which the two sides exchange evidence and information.

Some of the video showed a child while other video showed a person unrelated to the matter giving identification to officers.

Lassiter Saunders didn't realize a protective order issued in the case banned her from releasing unredacted video of that shooting when she provided some of it to a reporter Dec. 31 , she said in a federal court document filed last month in response to a request by the defendants that legal sanctions be imposed upon her .

After learning that disclosure violated the order, LaRonna Lassiter Saunders took steps that helped ensure no protected content was published, she indicated last month in that document.

"Lack of knowledge of the order and miscommunication about the disclosure were the issues here," Lassiter Saunders said. "Plaintiff and her legal team are now fully aware of areas and have addressed them and took efforts to remedy any disclosures. There are no injuries caused by the release, as none of the protected content was ever released through the media."

City, officers still concerned case will be tried in 'court of public opinion'

Jefferson and Kuhlman criticized Lassiter Saunders in the document they filed Monday for handing over information subject to a protective order without first making sure she wasn't violating that order.

"More should be expected of an attorney," they wrote.

Jefferson and Kuhlman noted that Mitchell in December denied their request seeking a more expansive protective order in the case, which they said they sought because they were concerned the plaintiffs would improperly use body camera video to try the case "in the court of public opinion."

The plaintiffs in the case have sought to try it in “the court of public opinion,” Jefferson and Kuhlman suggested in Monday’s document.

"Defendants request that the protective order in this case be modified to include all footage and recordings, in their entirety, as well as any transcripts of footage of the parties' videotaped depositions, which Defendants fear — justifiably — will also be used, dishonestly and out of context, to further taint a potential jury in this matter," they said. "Or, if the Court requires additional briefing on the matter, Defendants' request leave to revisit the Court's prior ruling on its motion for a protective order."

No rulings or responses to Monday’s document had been made as of Tuesday.

Both sides say they need more time to complete discovery process

Also on Monday, Mitchell dismissed a joint motion submitted by both sides in the case seeking to amend a previously issued scheduling order.

Both sides said they needed more time to complete the case's discovery process, in which the plaintiffs and defendants share evidence and information.

But Mitchell dismissed their motion after hearing both sides agree that they needed to confer further before committing to a concrete schedule, her ruling said.

Contact Tim Hrenchir at [email protected] or 785-213-5934.