Cordova v. Lake County et al

Filing 122

Discovery Order re 113 MOTION to Compel Defendants to Produce Documents and Respond to Interrogatory No. 3, 114 MOTION to Compel Defendants Responses to Interrogatories. Parties to meet and confer and file joint letter(s) by 2/24/2022 if unable to resolve disputes. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 2/3/2022. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICARDO DENNIS CORDOVA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 18-cv-00367-JSW (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 113
LAKE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

In ECF No. 113, Plaintiff Ricardo Cordova moves to compel on about 30 discovery

14

requests. The parties agree they have never spoken with each other over the phone concerning

15

these requests. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer by phone within 14 days. If they

16

cannot resolve their dispute, they must file a joint discovery letter brief no later than February 24,

17

2022 describing the remaining items in dispute.

18

To aid the parties in their meet and confer, the Court is generally of the view that

19

Defendant Lake County should produce any documents in its possession, custody or control

20

concerning other instances when Defendant Deputy Sheriff Aaron Clark was accused of or did use

21

excessive force, as Cordova has an excessive force claim against Clark. The parties differ

22

tremendously on what happened when Cordova was arrested (see ECF No. 82, denying Clark’s

23

motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claim), and this evidence may help the trier

24

of fact to decide who to believe. The Court also thinks that evidence of Clark’s training

25

concerning the use of force is relevant, as are any disciplinary measures that have been taken

26

against him concerning the use of force, any documents concerning the incident at issue, and any

27

documents about Cordova’s injuries or medical treatment concerning the events at issue.

28

Documents concerning Cordova’s criminal prosecution seem too far afield from the evidence of

1

primary conduct that is relevant and probative in this civil case. Cordova is entitled to take

2

reasonable discovery into his Monell claim against the County concerning how it updates its

3

PRCS database (or other method by which the County tracks who is on parole), and he may also

4

take discovery into the County’s policies concerning the use of force and addressing injuries to

5

arrestees. And he may take discovery into the records the County has about him.

6

To be clear, this order is not a ruling on the discovery requests at issue. Rather, it is the

7

Court’s experience that when the parties seem to be far apart on many discovery requests, a

8

general indication about how the Court is likely to rule on various issues can clear out an impasse

9

and help the parties to either narrow or resolve their dispute.

10

ECF No. 114 is similar to ECF No. 113. It concerns about 30 discovery requests, and the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

parties have not spoken to each other in a phone call about them. The Court believes that the

12

guidance provided above should help the parties to have a meaningful meet and confer.

13

Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer about these discovery requests as well

14

within 14 days. If they cannot resolve their dispute, they must file a joint discovery letter brief no

15

later than February 24, 2022 describing the remaining items in dispute.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: February 3, 2022

19
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2