Athwal et al v. County of Stanislaus et al

Filing 162

ORDER Regarding Discovery Dispute, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/1/2021. (Case Management Deadline: 14-Day)(Martin-Gill, S)

Case 1:15-cv-00311-TLN-BAM Document 162 Filed 10/01/21 Page 1 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

BALJIT ATHWAL and DALJIT ATWAL,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

vs.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, CITY OF
TURLOCK; CITY OF MODESTO; CITY
OF CERES; STANISLAUS COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY;
KIRK BUNCH; JON EVERS; TIMOTHY
REDD; DALE LINGERFELT; STEVE
JACOBSON; BIRGIT FLADAGER;
GALEN CARROLL; PAUL EDWARD
JONES,

WALTER W. WELLS and SCOTT
MCFARLANE,

19
20
21
22

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE
(Doc. 154)

Defendants.

17
18

Case No. 1:15-cv-00311-TLN-BAM

Case No. 1:20-cv-770-TLN-BAM

Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al.,
Defendants.

23
24

Pending before the Court is a discovery dispute brought by Plaintiffs Baljit Athwal and Daljit

25

Athwal and Plaintiffs Walter Wells and Scott MacFarlane to compel Defendant County of Stanislaus

26

to produce further responses to (1) Plaintiff Athwal’s Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 13 and Requests for

27

Production (“RFP”) Nos. 31-35 and 38; and (2) Plaintiff Wells’ Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 5

28
1

Case 1:15-cv-00311-TLN-BAM Document 162 Filed 10/01/21 Page 2 of 7

1

and 8.1 Plaintiffs filed a pretrial discovery statement on September 22, 2021. (Doc. 156.) Defendants

2

County of Stanislaus, Stanislaus County Office of the District Attorney, Kirk Bunch, Dale Lingerfelt,

3

Steve Jacobson, and Birgit Fladager filed an untimely pretrial discovery statement on September 27,

4

2021. (Doc. 157.)
The matter was heard via Zoom video on September 29, 2021, before United States Magistrate

5
6

Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Counsel Jessica Grant and Meredith Angueira appeared by Zoom video

7

on behalf of Plaintiffs Baljit Athwal and Daljit Athwal and Plaintiffs Walter Wells and Scott

8

MacFarlane. Counsel John Whitefleet appeared by Zoom video on behalf of Defendant County of

9

Stanislaus.
For the reasons stated on the record, and as discussed in detail below, Plaintiffs’ motion to

10
11

compel further discovery responses is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

12

BACKGROUND

13

On June 4, 2021, Plaintiffs moved to compel Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff Athwal’s

14

Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 13 and Plaintiff Wells’ Requests for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 1-5 and 8.

15

(Doc. 138.) Plaintiffs filed an amended motion to compel on June 16, 2021. (Doc. 141.) During meet

16

and confer efforts on July 1, 2021, Defendant agreed to produce responses to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 within

17

two weeks and responses to RFP Nos. 5 and 8 within three weeks. (See Doc. 159.) Thereafter, on

18

July 23, 2021, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to RFP Nos. 3

19

and 4 and compelling Defendant to provide responses to Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 13 within thirty

20

(30) days. (Doc. 146.)
On August 2, 2021, the Court held a conference to address the status of Defendant’s

21
22

production. Plaintiffs reported that they had not received any responsive documents and had not

23

received a response from Defendant. Counsel for Defendant County of Stanislaus was unaware that

24

an agreement had been reached or even the purpose of the status conference because negotiating

25

counsel was no longer with the defense firm. The Court set a further status conference for August 6,

26
27
Plaintiff Athwal’s RFPs Nos. 31-35 and 38 are identical to Plaintiff Wells’ RFP Nos. 1-5 and 8. The
Court generally will refer to these RFPs collectively as RFP Nos. 1-5 and 8.
1

28

2

Case 1:15-cv-00311-TLN-BAM Document 162 Filed 10/01/21 Page 3 of 7

1
2

2021. (Doc. 149.)
On August 6, 2021, the Court held a status conference to address the status of Defendant’s

3

discovery responses. Defendant reported providing responses to RFP Nos. 1, 2, and 8. Defense

4

counsel indicated that a response to RFP No. 5 was being processed and a second search for

5

documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 was being conducted to ensure accuracy. The Court

6

ordered Defendant to provide responses to RFP No. 5 and supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 1 and

7

2 no later than August 27, 2021. Defendant also was ordered to identify if any documents were

8

withheld based on objection or privilege. (Doc. 151.)

9

On September 1, 2021, the Court held a further status conference to address Defendant’s

10

responses to Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 13 and RFP Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 8. Plaintiffs identified

11

deficiencies with Defendant’s responses. The Court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding

12

the asserted deficiencies and set the matter for the instant discovery dispute conference on September

13

29, 2021. The Court instructed the parties to file discovery dispute briefs by September 24, 2021.

14

(Doc. 151.)

15

Plaintiffs filed their discovery dispute statement on September 22, 2021, identifying

16

deficiencies in Defendant’s responses to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 and Interrogatory No. 13. (Doc. 156.)

17

Defendant filed an untimely discovery statement on September 27, 2021, asserting that any issue

18

concerning RFP Nos. 1 and 2 had been resolved and that the response to Interrogatory No. 13 was

19

sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. (Doc. 157.)
DISCUSSION

20
21

A. RFP Nos. 1 and 2

22

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has failed to produce supplement responses to RFP Nos. 1

23

and 2 and has failed to amend its responses to indicate whether it has conducted a second search for

24

documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant counters that it served a supplemental response

25

to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 on August 27, 2021. Further, defense counsel reportedly informed Plaintiffs that

26

an additional search was performed, which is why the supplemental production reflected the

27

production of additional documents. Defendant therefore asserts that this issue is therefore resolved.

28

(Doc. 157 at 2.)
3

Case 1:15-cv-00311-TLN-BAM Document 162 Filed 10/01/21 Page 4 of 7

1

As clarified at the discovery conference, Plaintiffs seek to compel supplemental, verified

2

responses to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 which expressly state under penalty of perjury that Defendant

3

conducted a second search for documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 and that any responsive

4

documents were produced.

5

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a supplemental response to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 will be granted, in

6

part. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Defendant will be required to provide

7

supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 signed by counsel of record certifying that a second

8

search was conducted for responsive documents and that any responsive documents have been

9

produced. See Fed. R. Civ. P 26(g). Defendant also will be required to indicate if any documents

10

were withheld based on an objection or privilege. No verified response under oath is required. Fed. R.

11

Civ. P 26(g); 34.

12

B. Interrogatory No. 13:

13

Plaintiffs assert that Defendant has not complied with the Court’s July 23, 2021 order to

14

provide a response to Interrogatory No. 13, which demands: “For every PERSON identified in

15

[Interrogatory No. 12], IDENTIFY the facts, including motive, that led you to believe he or she might

16

have been directly or indirectly involved in the murder of Korey Kauffman.” (See Doc. 144 at 10-11.)

17

Plaintiffs point out that Defendant’s amended response to Interrogatory No. 13 invoked

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) but did not identify any specific records pursuant to that rule.

19

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s general reference to “reports, interviews, wiretaps” is insufficient to

20

respond to Interrogatory No. 13. (Doc. 156 at 3.) In short, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant’s

21

response is deficient because it does not identify any facts as required by the interrogatory and merely

22

refers generally to documents produced in discovery.

23
24
25
26
27
28

As to its response to Interrogatory No. 13, Defendant counters that Plaintiffs failed to identify
the complete response. Defendant specifies that, following objections, the response was as follows:
insofar as the information requested was not maintained in the manner requested, and is
equally available to Plaintiffs by reviewing the reports, interviews, wiretaps in the
underlying investigation, Defendant opts pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to refer to those reports, interviews, wiretaps in the underlying
investigation, which may refer to individuals as suspects or persons of interest, which
include Victor Altamirano, Jason Armstrong, Baljit Athwal, Daljit Atwal, Tina Carlos,
4

Case 1:15-cv-00311-TLN-BAM Document 162 Filed 10/01/21 Page 5 of 7

Frank Carson, Michael Cooley, Rickey Cooley, Christina DeFilippo, Georgia DeFilippo,
Filo, Luis Garcia, Rudy Gonzales, Keith Hobbs, Eula Keyes, John Lacey, David
McMillian, Charlie Odell, Toby Onate, Eduardo Quintanar, Praveen Singh, Danny Sisco,
Brandon Starr, Bobby Tickner, Walter Wells, Robert Woody.

1
2
3
4

(Doc. 157 at 2-3.)
Defendant explains that there were multiple indices included in the hard drive production of

5
6

underlying criminal proceedings containing over 300,000 files. The indices are organized by author,

7

Bates Number, Date of Occurrence, and by interviewee. (Id. at 3.) Each index has the author of the

8

report, date of the occurrence, date of the report, a summary of the report, the correspondence bates

9

numbers, the corresponding bates references to a transcript if applicable, and several other categories.

10

Defendant indicates that the indices are searchable, with the referenced documents linked to the actual

11

documents. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs may locate the named individuals just as easily as

12

Defendant and the burden is equal for either side to determine the information sought from the

13

available documents. Defendant further argues that when production is accompanied by indices

14

designed to guide the searcher, such production is sufficient and appropriate under Rule 33(d). (Id. at

15

3-4.)

16

As argued at the conference, Plaintiffs rely on State of Colorado ex rel. Woodard v. Schmidt-

17

Tiago Const. Co., 108 F.R.D. 731, 735 (D. Colo. 1985), for the proposition that Defendant is required

18

to list the specific document provided and indicate the page or paragraphs that are responsive to the

19

“fact” sought in the interrogatory. In the cited case, the plaintiff argued that it had produced thousands

20

of documents and was not required to list specific documents which would answer a specific

21

interrogatory or request for production of documents. The court disagreed, stating that the “appropriate

22

answer when documents are to be used [under Rule 33(d)] is to list the specific document provided the

23

other party and indicat[e] the page or paragraphs that are responsive to the interrogatory.” Id. at 735.

24

Plaintiffs note that Forest Guardians v. Kempthorne, No. CIV 06CV2560-L(LSP), 2008 WL

25

4492635, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008), which is relied upon by Defendant to justify its response,

26

also cited State of Colorado and similarly explained that when invoking Rule 33(d), the responding

27

party has the duty to specify by category and location, the records from which answers to

28

interrogatories can be derived. Id. In Forest Guardians, defendant responded to interrogatories by
5

Case 1:15-cv-00311-TLN-BAM Document 162 Filed 10/01/21 Page 6 of 7

1

generally citing to records contained in the administrative record. The court found this response

2

insufficient, explaining that an index “is a roadmap to all documents that are contained within the

3

administrative record, not a roadmap to documents from which an answer to a specific interrogatory

4

can be ascertained.” Id. The court reasoned that “[i]t is inconceivable that all documents contained

5

within the administrative record are responsive to each interrogatory. A more appropriate response

6

would be to identify documents listed on the index that are responsive to each specific interrogatory.”

7

Id.

8
9

Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds the cited cases distinguishable. The
Court accepts Defendant’s argument that this is not a simple case and it is uncertain when a person

10

becomes a “suspect” as requested by Plaintiffs’ interrogatory. As Defendant points out, such a

11

determination is a moving target. This is particularly so where the murder underlying this case was

12

investigated for 18 months and involved a 14-month preliminary hearing. Interrogatory No. 13

13

interrogatory asks for “facts” relating to every person identified as a suspect identified in interrogatory

14

12. Defendant identified over twenty-five different individuals. Unlike the cited cases, here, it is

15

entirely conceivable that each document provides a piece of a complex puzzle. Given this complexity,

16

it is probable that each of the documents produced and listed in the indices are responsive to the

17

interrogatory. Defendant appropriately provided indices to guide the searcher to the responsive

18

documents. See O'Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 272, 278 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (holding that

19

when voluminous documents are produced under Rule 33(d), they must be accompanied by indices

20

designed to guide the searcher to the documents responsive to the interrogatories).

21

The Court is also convinced by Defendant’s representation at the conference that individuals

22

familiar with the investigation of “suspects” are no longer employed by county. Thus, the burden of

23

deriving the answers is the same for both parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d); cf. O’Connor, 185 F.R.D. at

24

278 (“Without detailed specification by category and location of responsive documents, the burden of

25

deriving the answers to the interrogatories is not the same for the parties; rather, it would be easier for

26

persons employed by the defendants to locate responsive documents”).

27
28

For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 13 will
be denied.
6

Case 1:15-cv-00311-TLN-BAM Document 162 Filed 10/01/21 Page 7 of 7

CONCLUSION

1
2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

3

1.

4
5

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a supplemental response to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 is

GRANTED in part;
2.

Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, Defendant shall provide

6

supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 1 and 2 signed by counsel of record certifying that a second

7

search was conducted for responsive documents and that any responsive documents have been

8

produced. Defendant also shall indicate if any documents were withheld based on an objection or

9

privilege; and

10

3.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 13 is DENIED.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 1, 2021

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7