Patricia Ybarra et al v. City of King City et al

Filing 45

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 43 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

PATRICIA YBARRA, an individual;
MINOR A, an Individual under the age of 18
by Patricia Ybarra her legal guardian,
Plaintiffs,

14

Case No. 5:15-cv-02454 EJD (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1
Re: Dkt. 43

v.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

COUNTY OF MONTEREY; a municipal
corporation; MONTEREY COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE; a municipal
corporation; Monterey County Investigator
JORGE GUTIERREZ; Monterey County
Investigator JOHN FERRERIA; Monterey
County Investigator ROY DIAZ; Monterey
County Investigator STEVEN GUIDI;
Monterey County Investigator PETER
AUSTEN; Monterey County Sherriff’s
Deputy LLOYD FOSTER; and Monterey
County Sheriff’s Deputy, KRIS KNOTT,
Defendants.
This civil rights action arises out of the execution of a search warrant at plaintiffs’ home.

24

Defendants were investigating claims of corruption within the King City Police Department

25

relating to a scheme to illegally obtain private person’s vehicles. As part of that investigation, the

26

subject search warrant was obtained to search plaintiffs’ house for a particular vehicle (said to be

27

in the garage) and the keys to that vehicle. In sum, plaintiffs claim that defendants overstepped

28

their bounds and conducted an illegal search and seizure, used excessive force, and unlawfully

1

detained plaintiffs and damaged their property. Among other things, plaintiffs allege that

2

defendants pointed their gun at plaintiff Minor A (plaintiff Patricia Ybarra’s minor daughter),

3

made intimidating and threatening statements, searched the garage and the home (going through

4

papers and documents, and searching bookshelves and cabinets), and continued to search through

5

plaintiffs’ personal effects and paperwork even after completing the search for the car and keys.

6

Defendants deny any wrongdoing.
The First Amended Complaint (the operative pleading)1 asserts claims for (1) violation of

7
8

plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) false arrest/false imprisonment; (3)

9

violation of the California Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 and § 51.7); (4) civil conspiracy to

10

violate civil rights and commit torts; and (5) negligence.
At issue in Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 1: Whether defendants should be

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

permitted to conduct an inspection of plaintiffs’ home.2 This court is told that defendants served

13

plaintiffs with a request that they “be allowed to inspect the premises located at 262 Nantucket

14

Way, King City, California to video tape and/or photograph said premises at time of inspection.

15

Said inspection is to include the front yard, interior, back yard, and garage of the property.” (Dkt.

16

43, DDJR No. 1 at 8). Defendants say that they will endeavor to complete the inspection, along

17

with an evidence technician and a canine handler, within 2 hours and at a time when plaintiff

18

Minor A is at school. Plaintiffs dispute the relevance of the inspection and object to its apparently

19

unlimited scope. They also argue that the requested inspection is unduly intrusive of their privacy

20

and express concern that there could be differences in the way the home appears now than it did in

21

2014 when the incident occurred.
Upon consideration of the parties’ respective arguments, this court denies defendants’

22
23

request, but will permit discovery of the premises as proposed by plaintiffs. Defendants have not

24

sufficiently demonstrated how the proportionality and other requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

26(b)(2) are satisfied. They say that the inspection is being requested based on plaintiffs’

26
1

27

Shortly after this discovery report was filed, plaintiffs’ filed their amended complaint pursuant to
a stipulation and order, apparently for the purpose of including some additional defendants.

28

2

The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
2

1

allegations and depositions, arguing that their testimony raises issues as to the accuracy of

2

plaintiffs’ memory and their credibility. But, they fail to explain why that is so. Instead, they

3

make broad, generic assertions that the requested inspection is relevant to an understanding of the

4

layout of the house and to plaintiffs’ credibility. This court is unpersuaded that defendants’

5

proposed inspection---including an evidence technician and a canine handler (whose presence and

6

purpose are unexplained)---is proportional to the needs of the case.
Defendants are not aided by their reliance on Investors Mortgage Ins. Co. v. Dykema, 586

7
8

F. Supp. 666, 669 (D. Or. 1984). Dykema was an equitable action brought by a mortgage

9

insurance company, seeking a property inspection for the purpose of performing an appraisal,
which would be used as evidence in a main action concerning alleged inflated property appraisals.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

In that case, the inspection was allowed, in part, because there was no dispute that the requested

12

appraisal was vital to the outcome of the main action and could not be obtained by any other

13

means. Id. 668-69.

14

Nevertheless, the court will permit discovery as suggested by plaintiffs: Defendants may

15

photograph the outside of the home, on a date and at a time agreeable to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall

16

provide photographs of the inside of the home, as well as a layout of the home. Except as

17

otherwise provided by this order, defendants’ request for an inspection is denied.3
SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: October 19, 2016
______________________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Defendants assert that plaintiffs are agreeable to an inspection of the front hall and kitchen, to be
videotaped, for up to 10 minutes. However, plaintiffs say they made that offer as a compromise,
solely to attempt to resolve this matter without seeking the court’s intervention.
3

1
2

5:15-cv-02454-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Michael Rudolph Philippi [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

3
4
5
6

Ryan M. Thompson [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Steven Michael Berki [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10

Susan K. Blitch [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Vincent P. Hurley [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

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
4