Dugard v. United States of America

Filing 72

TENTATIVE ORDER re: Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Judge Carlos T. Bea on 01/23/2013. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2013)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JAYCEE DUGARD, individually, and as
GUARDIAN AD LITEM for her MINOR
CHILDREN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 3:11-cv-04718-CTB

Tentative Decision Re:
Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Discovery

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.

Before: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judge,
Being fully advised in the premises, the Court tentatively grants and denies
defendant United States’ motion to compel discovery filed December 7, 2012, and
orders, as follows:
The order of determination follows the listing of items found at pages 5-6 of
United States’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Comply with Discovery.
Absent notification by either party that there is objection to a tentative
ruling, the ruling will be adopted by the Court in its final order.

1. The motion to provide a computation of each category of damages
Plaintiffs claim, along with specific references to any documents or other
evidentiary material which plaintiffs intend to proffer in evidence to prove such
damages, is GRANTED. Documents and other materials which constitute the

work product of counsel need not be referenced.
2. Interrogatory No. 1. The motion to compel information about Plaintiffs’
recent addresses is GRANTED. This information is likely to lead to the
investigation of witnesses who have observed Plaintiffs, hence to evidence about
the Plaintiffs’ overall mental and physical condition.
3. Interrogatory No. 9. The motion to compel information about whether
Plaintiffs have entered into any contracts with entertainment sources is
GRANTED. The information sought is likely to lead to investigation of persons
with knowledge of Plaintiffs’ physical and mental condition and their abilities to
earn income.
4. Interrogatory No. 17. The motion to compel information about any
charitable donations or contributions Plaintiffs have received since 2009 is
DENIED. Absent some showing that the government of the United States has
made charitable donations to the plaintiffs, the Collateral Source rule makes this
information not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of any relevant evidence.
5. Interrogatory No. 20. The motion to compel information about visits to
health care providers is GRANTED. The information is likely to lead to the
discovery of evidence regarding the Plaintiffs’ physical and mental condition and
their ability to work and earn income.
6. Interrogatory No. 21. This interrogatory does not appear to be the subject
of the parties’ meet and confer as it is not mentioned in Exhibits F and G to
Defendant’s Motion to Compel. Without prejudice to this Court’s ruling as to item
No. 1. above, the motion to compel further answer to this interrogatory is DENIED
for failure to prove compliance with the meet and confer rules.
7. Request to Produce No. 3(a). Motion to produce documents relating to
the terms of any publishing or other contract concerning A Stolen Life is
GRANTED. It is reasonable to conclude such documents may contain information

regarding events in Plaintiffs’ lives which may be probative of negligence and the
nature and extent of damages.
8. Request to Produce No. 4. Motion to produce documents Plaintiffs have
exchanged with media sources relating to issues litigated in this case is
GRANTED, for the same reasons as the next ruling.
9. Request for Production No. 6. Motion to produce documents related to
written or oral statements Plaintiffs may have given to the press or other media
sources is GRANTED. Such statements may lead to the discovery of evidence
regarding Plaintiffs’ claims as to liability and as to their mental and physical
conditions, as well as their earning capacities.
10. Request for Production No. 9. Motion to produce Jaycee Dugard’s
recent federal tax returns and W-2 forms is GRANTED, subject to claim of
privilege from public disclosure at this time, as are all documents produced in this
proceeding per earlier court order. Tax returns and forms are protected from
discovery unless necessary to prepare fully against claims for damages. Here,
other forms of discovery may provide some of the information needed to establish
earned income over the relevant periods of time. But precise information
regarding prior statements of income in the form of tax returns is necessary to
question Plaintiffs adequately at deposition regarding their claims of monetary
losses.
11. Request for Production No. 10. Motion to compel production of
documents relating to any medical treatment Plaintiffs have received since 2009 is
GRANTED. Medical records, other than those of psychologists and psychiatrists
already produced, are reasonably likely to contain information which will lead to
the discovery of the nature and extent of physical and mental conditions, or lack
thereof.
12. Request for Production No. 11. This request is cumulative of the

immediately preceding request and is therefore DENIED, subject to production of
bills and sources of payments, without prejudice to further motion if such bills and
sources are not produced in answer to the previous request for production.
13. Request for Production No. 12. The motion for production of school
records of Ms. Dugard’s children is GRANTED. Such documents are likely to
contain information relevant to prove the mental and physical health and abilities
of the children, Plaintiffs herein.
14. Request for Production No. 13. The motion to produce documents
relating to the extracurricular activities of the children of Ms. Dugard is
GRANTED. Such documents are likely to contain information regarding the
ability and disposition of the children to engage in non-school activities, which
may lead to the production of evidence of their mental and physical health and
abilities.
The parties are encouraged to meet and confer regarding the above tentative
rulings, and to advise the court by Friday, January 25, 2013, whether the hearing
presently scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2013 is required. If such hearing is
required, the party or parties objecting to the tentative rulings above stated will
inform the court by letter (electronically filed) as to which of the rulings the party
desires hearing no later than 3:00 p.m. January 25, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 23, 2013
/s/ Carlos T. Bea
Hon. Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judge