Bell v. Williams et al

Filing 81

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY granting in part and denying in part 79 Discovery Letter Brief. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/29/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VINCENT KEITH BELL,
Plaintiff,

8

11

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

v.

9
10

Case No. 18-cv-01245-SI

Re: Dkt. No. 79
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14
15
16

The parties have submitted a joint discovery letter regarding plaintiff’s requests for
“disciplinary histories for sustained or unsustained complaints” filed against defendant deputies and
other involved deputies.1 Defendants state that they have searched for sustained complaints against
the named defendants “concerning conduct similar to the conduct alleged here,” as well as

17
dishonesty, going back five years prior to the incident, and that they found no sustained complaints.
18
Dkt. No. 79 at 3.
19
The current dispute concerns: (1) whether defendants should be required to search for
20
responsive documents earlier than five years prior to the incident, with plaintiff seeking no time
21
limitation on his requests; (2) whether plaintiff may seek unsustained complaints in addition to
22
sustained complaints; (3) whether plaintiff is entitled to documents related to a broader category of
23
complaints, such as complaints about any type of excessive force; and (4) whether defendants must
24
produce records relating to complaints about dishonesty made against three non-defendant officers
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No. 7 requested “all documents related
to the disciplinary history of the involved deputies regarding failure to accommodate disability,
misuse of safety cell, excessive force, unlawful cell extraction and dishonesty.” Joint Letter, Ex. A
(Dkt. No. 79).
1

1

“whose statements were used to justify defendants’ actions according to reports: Lt. R. DeGuzman,

2

Deputy Graves, and Deputy Edwards.” Dkt. No. 79 at 1.

3

Defendants object that plaintiff is on a “fishing expedition,” that the documents implicate

4

officers’ privacy interests, and that unfounded complaints, complaints involving non-defendant

5

officers, and complaints older than five years are irrelevant.
In civil rights cases, the Court has adopted a balancing test that is moderately pre-weighted

7

in favor of disclosure. See Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 1987); see also

8

Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 611 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Under this balancing test, the public

9

interests in favor of disclosure, such as civil rights and justice in individual cases, “clearly outweigh”

10

the public interests in favor of secrecy, such as the privacy rights of officers. Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

661. Courts have found that production of personnel records pursuant to a “tightly drawn”

12

protective order sufficiently protect the privacy rights of officers. See Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616-18

13

(citing cases).

14

The Court concludes that plaintiff is entitled to seek the documents at issue because

15

complaints about excessive force, dishonesty, and other conduct similar to the conduct alleged here

16

(e.g., misuse of the safety cell and unlawful cell extraction) could be relevant to plaintiff’s excessive

17

force and disability claims, regardless of the viability of plaintiff’s Monell claims.2 See Soto, 162

18

F.R.D. at 620, 621 (ordering production of complaints, including unfounded complaints, because

19

“[r]ecords of complaints against defendant officers relating to their use of excessive force has been

20

found to be relevant to a plaintiff’s civil rights claim. . . . as such information may be crucial to

21

proving [a] Defendant’s history or pattern of such behavior.”); Rodriguez v. City of Fontana, No.

22

EDCV 16-1903-JGB(KKx), 2017 WL 4676261, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017) (“[T]he Court finds

23

complaints and investigations regarding dishonesty could be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against

24

the Officer Defendants and that complaints and investigations regarding use of force could be

25

relevant to Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Liang and McCoy.”). The Court also finds that any

26

complaints of dishonesty against the three non-defendant officers could be relevant to their

27
28

Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Monell claims is scheduled for a hearing on
February 12, 2021.
2
2

1

credibility, and thus those documents are discoverable as well. See id.

2

However, the Court agrees with defendants that a cut-off of five years prior to the incident

3

is reasonable. See Rodriguez, 2017 WL 4676261, at *3. In addition, the Court finds that in

4

recognition of the officers’ privacy concerns, defendants may produce the records with personal

5

information, such as a deputy’s address, redacted, and defendants may designate documents as

6

“confidential” or, where appropriate, as “attorneys-eyes only” pursuant to the protective order.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: January 29, 2021

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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