Paul v. Redwood National And State Parks Department et al

Filing 147

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/10/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM D. PAUL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-07197-SI
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 146
GREGORY MORSE, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

The parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court.

Plaintiff, who is now

14

represented by counsel, seeks to reopen discovery for limited purposes, including to prepare an

15

opposition to defendants’ pending motions for summary judgment. Defendants oppose the request

16

to reopen, asserting inter alia that plaintiff was not diligent with discovery when he was litigating

17

this case pro se. Defendants also raise specific objections to the particular discovery plaintiff

18

proposes, arguing that the discovery is irrelevant, unnecessary, invades defendants’ privacy

19

interests, and/or is overbroad.

20
21
22
23
24
25

The Court finds that it is appropriate and in the interest of justice to allow for a limited
reopening of discovery as follows:
1. Plaintiff may take 4 hour depositions of defendants; either plaintiff’s counsel will travel
to defendants or the depositions shall be taken by video conference.
2. Plaintiff shall provide responses and/or supplemental responses to both the requests for
admission and the interrogatories previously served by defendants.

26

3. Personnel files relating to training, discipline, duties, and performance: The Court finds

27

that plaintiff is entitled to defendants’ personnel records. In civil rights cases, the Court

28

has adopted a balancing test that is moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure. See

generally Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 1987). Under this

2

balancing test, the public interests in favor of disclosure, such as civil rights and justice

3

in individual cases, “clearly outweigh” the public interests in favor of secrecy, such as

4

the privacy rights of officers. Id.; see also Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617

5

(N.D. Cal. 1995) (“[D]istrict courts in the Ninth Circuit have found that the privacy

6

interests police officers have in their personnel files do not outweigh the civil rights

7

plaintiff’s need for the documents.”). The material may be produced subject to a

8

protective order. If there are documents in the personnel files that defendants contend

9

are not relevant, the parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve any disputes.

10

4. Internal policy directives and guidelines promulgated by defendants’ employers:

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Defendants object that this request is overbroad, seeks irrelevant documents, and that the

12

documents are either publicly available and/or not in the possession of the individual

13

defendants. Plaintiff does not address defendant’s objections in the letter brief, and the

14

Court agrees that as framed, the request is overbroad and is therefore denied.

15

5. Documents concerning or relating to the arrest of Mr. Paul, the decision not to bring

16

charges, and any other documents about Mr. Paul: To the extent these documents are

17

within defendants’ possession, custody or control, defendants are directed to produce

18

them.

19

6. Citizen complaints: Plaintiff did not list citizen complaints in his portion of the joint

20

statement, while defendants assert that any citizen complaints are irrelevant and

21

inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1) and (b)(1). If in fact plaintiff

22

seeks citizen complaints, the Court finds that any citizen complaints involving excessive

23

force are discoverable.

24

admissibility of any such complaints.

The Court makes no finding at this time regarding the

25

7. Documents identified in defendants’ initial disclosures: Defendants state that they have

26

produced all such documents, and accordingly the Court considers this issue to be

27

resolved.

28

The parties shall meet and confer regarding an expeditious schedule for completing this
2

1

discovery. If this discovery will require modifications to the current schedule for resolving the

2

summary judgment motions, or other dates, the parties shall meet and confer and shall file no later

3

than January 10, 2020 (and earlier, if possible) a stipulation with a proposed new schedule.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: December 10 2019

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3