Youngblood v. City of Bakersfield et al

Filing 27

ORDER re: Discovery Dispute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/12/2013. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VICTORIA YOUNGBLOOD,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01150 AWI JLT
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

On June 10, 2012, the Court held an informal telephone conference regarding a discovery

18

dispute that was underway. (Doc. 26) As a result of the conference, many of the issues were

19

resolved or clarified as follows:

20

1.

Requests No. 2, 3, 22 and 43 had been fully addressed by Defendants though

21

Defendants should amend their responses, as necessary, to indicate all documents have been

22

provided or no responsive documents exist.

23

2.

As to Request No. 7, Defendants have provided all information related to any bites

24

by K-9 Bronx. Plaintiff may file a motion to compel information related to all bites by all K-9s

25

owned by the BPD for the past 10 years but the Court strongly encourages her to reconsider this

26

request. The summary of the request seems to indicate that it is significantly overbroad in terms of

27

scope and time and is not likely to seek relevant information, as currently worded.

28
1

1

3.

Defendants have provided the deployment log for K-9 Bronx in response to Request

2

No. 24. They have not done so as to the other K-9s. However, the log for Bronx does not provide

3

any information about the circumstances of the deployments such that Plaintiff can determine

4

whether there is evidence of an unlawful custom related to the dog’s deployment. Thus, Plaintiff

5

seeks the narrative report from Officer Dalton related to each of these approximate 600

6

deployments. Defendants argue that production of these reports would be overly burdensome and

7

they are irrelevant.

8

Once again Plaintiff may file a motion to compel information related to all deployments of

9

Bronx and the other K-9s but the Court strongly encourages her to consider propounding a request

10

which is better tailored to the relevant circumstances of this case. The summary of the request

11

here as currently worded, seems to indicate that the request is significantly overbroad is likely to

12

seek irrelevant information.

13

4.

Request No. 25 seeks information related to the K-9 training received by the

14

supervisors in the K-9 unit. Defendants agreed they would produce these documents. Defendants

15

SHALL do so no later than June 21, 2012;

16

5.

In Request No. 37, Plaintiff seeks any law enforcement reports which demonstrate

17

that Thomas Thoms has “violently resisted law enforcement officers” before the search warrant

18

executed in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel believed that there is a report prepared in relation to the

19

search of Plaintiff’s home which indicates that there were earlier law enforcement reports which

20

address this topic. As soon as possible, but no later than June 21, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel SHALL

21

provide to counsel for Defendants the report which reflects that this earlier report(s) exists so that

22

Defendants can investigate;

23

6.

In Request No. 38, Plaintiff seeks the recorded statements of the witnesses to the

24

search of her home. Defense counsel admits that the statements were audio recorded but that the

25

tapes cannot be located. No later than June 21, 2012, defense counsel SHALL ensure a diligent

26

search has occurred to locate these tapes and the results of the search are communicated to

27

Plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel SHALL investigate the custom/policy of the BPD as to the

28
2

1

use/re-use/destruction of audio tapes used in the field of witnesses to record statements as a

2

starting point for this diligent search;

3

7.

In Request No. 39, Plaintiff seeks the CJIS printout of all arrests and convictions for

4

Thomas Thoms. Defendants have produced a “probation summary” report but this fails to provide

5

the requested information. No later than June 21, 2012, Defendants SHALL produce the requested

6

information which demonstrates the arrests and convictions for this individual;

7

8.

Requests No. 40 and 41 seek information about a DOJ investigation of the BPD

8

which occurred between 8 and 10 years ago as it pertains to the K-9 unit. The parties agree the

9

DOJ investigation did not focus on the K-9 unit. Moreover, Defendants assert that the report itself

10

is available on the internet which is equally available to Plaintiff and is irrelevant based upon its

11

remoteness in time. Plaintiff admitted that she was seeking the BPD’s policy changes or other

12

changes made in response to the DOJ investigation. However, it does not appear that these

13

requests specifically seek this information. Thus, Plaintiff may file a motion to compel

14

information related to DOJ investigation/recommendation related to the K-9 unit but the Court

15

strongly encourages her to consider propounding a different request which is narrowly tailored to

16

the information sought. Finally, at this time, the Court cannot state unequivocally the information

17

is not relevant but any motion on this topic would be required to demonstrate how the information

18

sought is relevant;

19

9.

As to Request No. 46, Defendants have produced six CDs of the dispatches for the

20

events occurring during the relevant time period. Notably, these CDs include police incidents

21

other than the one involving Plaintiff. In addition, Defendants have provided a written dispatch

22

log which includes only the incident involving Plaintiff. Plaintiff complains that the written log

23

does not assist with the six CDs because they do not correlate. Thus, Defendants agreed to seek

24

out a CD which includes only the entries related to the search warrant at her house. Failing this,

25

they will produce a dispatch log for which covers the same period of time as the six CDs.

26

Defendants SHALL produce this information no later than June 21, 2013;

27
28

10.

Plaintiff complains that counsel improperly instructed Officer Hilliard not to answer

certain questions at his deposition. However, the Court cannot properly evaluate the objections
3

1

without specific citations to the transcript. Thus, should Plaintiff wish to pursue having Officer

2

Hilliard submit to a deposition to address the questions he did not answer upon advice of counsel,

3

she may file a motion to compel. In the meanwhile, all counsel are urged to cooperate with each

4

other and to instruct their witnesses not to answer only consistently with the rules. Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

30(c)(2) [“A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a

6

privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule

7

30(d)(3).”].
ORDER

8
9
10
11

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
1.

Any further or amended responses or actions, as described above, SHALL be

provided no later than June 21, 2012.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 12, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4