Campbell v. Santa Cruz County et al

Filing 59

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re 54 Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on July 20, 2015 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

RONALD W. CAMPBELL,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-00847-EJD
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
(Re: Docket No. 54)

Plaintiff Ronald W. Campbell seeks production of four internal investigation files
17
concerning Defendant Matt Delorenzo. The files are in the custody of third party San Jose Police
18
Department—where Delorenzo worked after working in the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office.
19
Campbell wants these files to prove Delorenzo’s intent or absence of mistake in taking the actions
20
in Santa Cruz County at issue in this case. Defendants Delorenzo and County of Santa Cruz
21
oppose.
22
There is no real dispute that in the Ninth Circuit, subsequent acts may be admissible under
23

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and therefore discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 1 The parties’

24
dispute lies in whether Campbell can meet his burden to show that (1) there is sufficient proof for
25
1

26
27
28

See United States v. Bibo-Rodriguez, 922 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1991) (“By its very terms,
404(b) does not distinguish between ‘prior’ and ‘subsequent’ acts. We have specifically allowed
prior act evidence . . . [and] we allowed subsequent act evidence to prove intent.”); United States v.
Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[I]t is clear that evidence of subsequent crimes or acts
of misconduct is admissible if it is relevant to an issue at trial.”).
1
Case No. 5:14-cv-00847-EJD
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE