Jaramillo v. City of San Mateo et al

Filing 37

ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
10

Case No. 13-cv-00441 NC

JOSE ANTONIO AGUILAR
JARAMILLO,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS

CITY OF SAN MATEO, and others,

Re: Dkt. No. 34

Defendants.

15
16

In this civil rights case alleging excessive force and retaliation by City of San

17

Mateo police officers, plaintiff Jaramillo seeks to discover documents relating to his

18

arrest, including San Mateo’s “Internal Affairs” documents. The primary dispute is

19

whether the “official information” privilege shields the discovery. San Mateo asserts that

20

Jaramillo should instead depose witnesses to discover the relevant information. As

21

explained below, the court finds that Jaramillo’s need to discover relevant information

22

outweighs the qualified “official information” privilege. The court therefore grants

23

Jaramillo’s discovery requests, with some modifications to focus the discovery.

24

DISCOVERY REQUESTS

25

This lawsuit arises from a March 13, 2012, incident during which Jaramillo was

26

arrested by San Mateo Police Officers. The disputed document requests are set forth in

27

full in the joint discovery statement, docket entry 34. In sum:

28
Case No. 13-cv-00441 NC
ORDER GRANTING DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1

!

Requests 2-5: Investigative records, reports, and recordings concerning the

2

incident, including investigations conducted by San Mateo Internal Affairs

3

Division.

4

!

and “relating to policies” on the use of force for the San Mateo Police Department.

5
6

!

!

Request 14: All documents relating to discipline of police officers for police
misconduct in the last five years. And,

9
10

Request 13: All documents relating to complaints received alleging police
misconduct in the last five years.

7
8

Requests 11-12: All documents “relating to training materials” on the use of force

!

Request 15: documents supporting San Mateo’s contention that police had

11

probable cause to arrest Jaramillo.1

12

The court held a hearing on this discovery dispute on October 9, 2013. Counsel

13

for San Mateo did not appear at the hearing and has not offered any explanation for this

14

failure to appear.
ANALYSIS

15
16

1.

Relevance

17

The general scope of civil discovery includes any nonprivileged matter that is

18

relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Relevant information need not be admissible if

19

the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

20

evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

21

Here, the requested information is probative of what happened the day of

22

Jaramillo’s arrest, what statements witnesses made, what investigation took place,

23

whether San Mateo ratified the officers’ conduct, whether San Mateo retaliated against

24

Jaramillo, and whether officers complied with the applicable training and policies. The

25

requested information is therefore relevant.

26
27
28

1

Request 16 is also identified in the letter brief, but the parties did not explain what the
dispute is. Request 16 is therefore denied without prejudice.
Case No. 13-cv-00441 NC
ORDER GRANTING DOCUMENT REQUESTS
2

1

2.

2

A finding of relevance does not end the court’s inquiry. Federal Rule of Civil

3

Procedure 26(c) provides that a court may limit discovery to protect from annoyance,

4

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Furthermore, the federal

5

common law recognizes a qualified privilege for “official information.” Sanche v. Santa

6

Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990). To determine whether the official information

7

sought is privileged, courts must do a case-by-case analysis that weighs the potential

8

benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the

9

privilege bars discovery. Id.

10

“Official Information” Privilege

In Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 660 (N.D. Cal. 1987), magistrate

11

judge Wayne Brazil articulated a test for the qualified “official information” privilege that

12

balances competing societal interests: interests of law enforcement, privacy interests of

13

police officers or citizens who provide information to or file complaints against police

14

officers, interests of civil rights plaintiffs, the policies that inform the national civil rights

15

laws, and the needs of the judicial process. 114 F.R.D. at 660. In civil rights cases, this

16

balancing test is moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure. Id. at 662; Williams v.

17

Cnty. of Alameda, No. 12-cv-2511 SBA (MEJ), 2013 WL 4608473, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug.

18

28, 2013).

19

Many other judges in the Northern District of California have applied the Kelly test

20

to police departments’ “internal affairs” documents in cases alleging police misconduct.

21

For example, in Williams, magistrate judge Maria-Elena James ordered the Alameda

22

County Sheriff’s Office to produce internal affairs documents of the named defendant

23

officers, subject to a protective order. 2013 WL 4608473, at *2-3. Similarly, magistrate

24

judge Laurel Beeler ordered San Leandro to produce internal affairs documents of the

25

named defendant officers, subject to a protective order. Doe v. Gill, No. 11-cv-04759

26

CW (LB), 2012 WL 1038655, at *4. Finally, in Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603,

27

613 (N.D. Cal. 1995), magistrate judge James found that Concord did not meet its

28

“substantial threshold burden” in support of the privilege. She ordered production of
Case No. 13-cv-00441 NC
ORDER GRANTING DOCUMENT REQUESTS
3

1
2

internal affairs files, subject to a protective order.
Applying the balancing test of Kelly, this court reaches the same conclusion here

3

as the judges in Williams, Gill, and Soto. In sum, San Mateo’s qualified privilege is out-

4

weighed by the interests of civil rights plaintiffs, the policies that inform the national civil

5

rights laws, and the societal need for transparency of the judicial process. As a

6

consequence, the court overrules the “official information” objection to requests 2-5 and

7

11-15 and orders San Mateo to produce responsive documents, subject to the protective

8

order previously issued in this case, docket entry 19.

9
10

3.

Scope

Finally, San Mateo objects that requests 11 and 12, asking for “documents relating

11

to” training materials and policies on the use of force, are vague and overly broad. The

12

court finds that these requests ask for relevant information, but could be narrowed to the

13

specific type of force alleged in this case. Had San Mateo appeared at the discovery

14

hearing, the parties likely could have worked out a fair compromise. San Mateo is

15

therefore ordered to produce all training materials and policies on the use of force that it

16

contends were applicable to the plaintiff’s March 13, 2012 arrest.
CONCLUSION

17
18

Plaintiff’s discovery requests are GRANTED. Within 21 days of this order, San

19

Mateo must supplement its production with documents responsive to plaintiff’s document

20

requests 2-5 and 11-15. This supplemental production is subject to the protective order.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Date: October 16, 2013

24

___________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
Case No. 13-cv-00441 NC
ORDER GRANTING DOCUMENT REQUESTS
4