Evans v. Gilmore et al

Filing 48

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 47 Defendant's request to compel discovery responses. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 TERALYN RENEA EVANS, 4 Case No. 15-cv-01772-MEJ Plaintiff, 5 DISCOVERY ORDER v. Re: Dkt. No. 47 6 PRESTON GILMORE, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 INTRODUCTION 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter in which Defendant 12 Contra Costa County (the “County”) seeks to compel Plaintiff Teralyn Renea Evans (“Plaintiff”) 13 to respond to certain outstanding discovery requests. Dkt. No. 47. As a preliminary matter, 14 Defendant states the parties did not meet in confer in person because of Plaintiff’s remote location 15 in Parlier, California. Jt. Ltr. at 1. However, Plaintiff states she “has no travel restraints that 16 would prevent a meeting near the Defendants’ location.” Id. at 8. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the 17 undersigned’s Discovery Standing Order, the parties must meet and confer in person for the 18 purpose of resolving all disputes. Accordingly, while the Court shall consider this letter, the 19 parties are advised that no further disputes will be considered unless the parties comply with the 20 Standing Order.1 Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this 21 22 case, the Court issues the following order. BACKGROUND 23 24 Plaintiff brings this case against the County, the City of Richmond, and a number of their 25 employees based on the removal of Plaintiff from her parents’ custody and temporary placement 26 in foster care in 2002. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Although Plaintiff’s parents filed a civil suit in 2003, 27 1 28 The parties are also advised that the Court will not consider any further letters that exceed the five-page limit, unless leave to exceed the limit has previously been granted. 1 see Compl. in Evans, et al. v. Gilmore, et. al., No. 03-cv-643 MEJ (N.D. Cal., filed on Feb. 14, 2 2003), Plaintiff brought the present case on her own behalf after turning 18. Plaintiff named 3 twelve defendants and brought six causes of action against all of them: (1) “Violations of Civil 4 Right to Security in Persons and Houses” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) “Violations of Civil Right 5 to Due Process of Law” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) “Violations of Civil Right to Equal Rights 6 under the Law” under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (4) “Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights” under 42 7 U.S.C. § 1985; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (6) Negligent Infliction of 8 Emotional Distress. See Compl. After the County moved to dismiss, the Court dismissed all of 9 Plaintiff’s state law claims against the County as untimely, but allowed her federal claims to 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 proceed. Order, Dkt. No. 33. On October 26, 2015, the County served Special Interrogatory Requests and Requests for 12 Production on Plaintiff. Jt. Ltr. at 3. Plaintiff failed to produce any documents in response. Id. 13 After the parties conferred by email, Plaintiff stated she “will provide the recorded materials for 14 copy at the Defendant’s expense due to the time-consuming and costly nature of making copies of 15 all the recorded materials in Plaintiff’s possession.” Id. However, after the County set up a 16 meeting location near Plaintiff’s remote location and sent a copy service to make the necessary 17 copies, Plaintiff did not produce any documents for copying. Id. As to her interrogatory 18 responses, Plaintiff objected on the basis that responses would cause her “embarrassment and 19 undue burden.” Jt. Ltr., Ex. A (Pl.’s Special Interrog. Resps.). 20 21 LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a party may obtain discovery “regarding 22 any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 23 needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Factors to consider include “the importance of the 24 issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 25 information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 26 whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. 27 Discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id. However, “[t]he parties and 28 the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and 2 1 consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee notes (2015 2 amendments). Thus, there is “a shared responsibility on all the parties to consider the factors 3 bearing on proportionality before propounding discovery requests, issuing responses and 4 objections, or raising discovery disputes before the courts.” Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp., 2016 5 WL 736213, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016); Goes Int’l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., 2016 WL 427369, at 6 *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) (citing advisory committee notes for proposition that parties share a 7 “collective responsibility” to consider proportionality and requiring that “[b]oth parties . . . tailor 8 their efforts to the needs of th[e] case”). 9 Rule 26(c) “confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 20, 36 (1984). “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from 12 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including by (1) prohibiting 13 disclosure or discovery; (2) conditioning disclosure or discovery on specified terms; (3) 14 preventing inquiry into certain matters; or (4) limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to 15 certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 16 17 DISCUSSION Having reviewed the County’s discovery requests, the Court finds they are relevant. The 18 County’s Special Interrogatories seek information regarding the facts supporting Plaintiff’s 19 allegations, her personal recollection of the events that transpired, and contact information for 20 Plaintiff’s health care provider who treated her for the injuries alleged in her Complaint. Jt. Ltr., 21 Ex. A. As she is the person who filed this lawsuit, Plaintiff cannot now claim “embarrassment” as 22 a reason not to provide information on the facts surrounding her claims. The County’s Requests 23 for Production seek the same information. Id., Ex. B (Pl.’s Resps. to Reqs. for Produc.). Plaintiff 24 does not appear to argue that the requests are not relevant; instead, she argues: “The extended 25 length of this [joint letter] only serves to restate facts that will not be relevant at trial and to cast 26 the Plaintiff’s integrity and approach in litigating her claims in an inaccurate and negative 27 manner.” Id. at 8. However, the fact that Plaintiff may disagree with the County’s position does 28 not mean it is not entitled to obtain relevant discovery, regardless of whether it is admissible at 3 1 trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee notes (2015 2 amendments) (“Discovery of nonprivileged information not admissible in evidence remains 3 available so long as it is otherwise within the scope of discovery.”). Plaintiff states she “is 4 satisfied that she can successfully argue her case with discovery as-is and the truthful testimony of 5 all witnesses during trial.” Jt. Ltr. at 8. But Plaintiff fails to acknowledge that the County is also 6 entitled to present its case. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the County’s relevant discovery 7 requests, and the County is therefore entitled to move for an order compelling the information it 8 seeks. Further, Plaintiff does not deny she previously admitted she is in possession of the 10 documents at issue. Id. at 4. The County also notes that in her Initial Disclosures, Plaintiff stated 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 she has: (1) original or copied versions of communications between her parents and County 12 personnel during the relevant time period; (2) original or copied versions of home videos from the 13 period of time preceding and following the period covered in her Complaint; and (3) original or 14 copied versions of written, drawn, or otherwise recorded means of communication she make 15 regarding the allegations in her Complaint. Id. Having previously admitted she is in possession of 16 these documents, Plaintiff is now required to produce them. CONCLUSION 17 18 Based on the analysis above, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to respond to the County’s 19 discovery requests by April 29, 2016. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the County may 20 move for sanctions. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 4, 2016 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?