Garcia v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 159

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY 154 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/28/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

DANIEL C. GARCIA,

Case No. 10-cv-02424-SI

Plaintiff,
6
v.

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

7
8

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 154

Defendants.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Before the Court is the parties’ joint letter regarding plaintiff Daniel Garcia’s motion to

12

compel production of certain personnel records.

13

responses to two interrogatories and two requests for production, as well as deposition testimony

14

on the same subjects. Id. at 1. Plaintiff seeks information regarding, and production of, all

15

complaints made against four officers, Alec Lange, Christopher Bell, Michael Carleton, and Gary

16

Hosman, during specified time periods, as well as disciplinary records, internal affairs documents,

17

and related documents from the same periods.1 Id. To date, defendants have produced only

18

internal affairs investigation information related to the May 2008 incident involving plaintiff. Id.

19

Defendants have also offered to produce, for Officer Lange only, internal affairs information and

20

performance-related documents from 2003 to 2008. Id. As to all other requested materials,

21

defendants have asserted relevancy and privacy objections. Id.

22
23

Rule 26(b)(1) provides that:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’

25
26

28

Plaintiff seeks to compel

Rule 26(b) defines the scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

24

27

Dkt. No. 154.

1

For defendant Lange, plaintiff seeks information from January 2003 to present; for
Officer Carleton, from January 2002 to present; for Officer Bell, from January 1998 to present;
and for Sergeant Hosman, from January 1998 to present.

1

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The relevance standard is extremely broad, especially in civil rights

3

excessive force cases. See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

4

Relevant information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

5

26(b)(1). However, “[o]n motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of

6

discovery” under the Federal Rules if it determines that, inter alia, “the proposed discovery is

7

outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Id. 26(b)(2)(C).
The Court finds that, with respect to Officer Lange, the discovery plaintiff seeks is

9

relevant. Plaintiff does not seek unlimited access to all of Officer Lange’s personnel files, only to

10

internal affairs investigations, disciplinary actions, and civilian complaints. Any such discovery,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

even after the May 2008 incident, is relevant to plaintiff’s remaining excessive force and damages

12

claims against Officer Lange.

13

As to the non-party officers, however, plaintiff’s request is more burdensome on

14

defendants and less likely to aid in the litigation of plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff seeks, for Officer Bell

15

and Sergeant Hosman, over 18 years of information, and for Officer Carleton, over 14 years of

16

information: (i) to contest the non-party officers’ credibility as witnesses; (ii) because the

17

information may aid plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages; and (iii) because the information may

18

help to establish vicarious liability for state law claims. Joint Letter (Dkt. No. 154) at 2-3. The

19

Court is not persuaded that such expansive discovery as to these three non-party officers is

20

reasonable, especially where no Monell claim remains. Cf. Myles v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 15-

21

1985, 2016 WL 2343914, at *12-13 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2016) (discussing relevance of non-party

22

officer information based on Monell claims). Officers Bell and Carleton and Sergeant Hosman

23

will almost surely serve as witnesses at trial, having been officers on the scene for the events that

24

eventually led to plaintiff’s claims in this case. Nevertheless, the Court finds that, even under an

25

expansive relevancy standard, “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its

26

likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

27

Defendants also argue that production of the requested documents and information would

28

violate the officers’ privacy rights. Joint Letter (Dkt. No. 154) at 4-5. While federal courts
2

1

recognize a right of privacy respecting confidential law enforcement records, see Kelly v. City of

2

San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 650, 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987), “the privacy interests police officers have in their

3

records do not outweigh a plaintiff’s interests in civil rights cases.” Doe v. Gill, No. 11-4759 CW

4

LB, 2012 WL 1038655, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012) (citations omitted); see also Green v.

5

Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624, 644 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (citations omitted) (“In cases involving section 1983

6

claims, courts have repeatedly held that police personnel files and documents are relevant and

7

discoverable.”). Officers’ personal privacy “may be sufficiently protected with the use of a

8

‘tightly drawn’ protective order . . . .”2 Gill, 2012 WL 1038655, at *4. The Court finds that

9

plaintiff’s interest in information related to Officer Lange outweighs Officer Lange’s privacy

10

interest in that information.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

In sum, the Court finds that plaintiff’s request for information relating only to defendant

12

Officer Lange is reasonable. Defendants are hereby ordered provide the requested information

13

with respect to Officer Lange, but not as to the three non-party officers. Plaintiff’s request that

14

defendants bear the attorneys’ fees and costs for a second deposition of Officer Carleton is hereby

15

DENIED as moot.

16

This order resolves Dkt. No. 154.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 28, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The parties have entered into a stipulated protective order in this case. See Dkt. No. 139.
3