Ramirez et al v. City Of Gilroy et al

Filing 51

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 50 Discovery Letter Brief. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
ALMA RAMIREZ, ET AL.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

ORDER RE OCTOBER 30, 2018 JOINT
DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER

v.

10

CITY OF GILROY, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.17-cv-00625-VKD

Re: Dkt. No. 50

Defendants.

12

Defendants City of Gilroy and Adam Moon seek to re-open fact discovery to obtain the

13
14

following documents and things: (1) decedent Hector Alvarez’s juvenile criminal records and the

15

deposition of a person most knowledgeable from Santa Clara County (“the County”) concerning

16

those records, and (2) May 2015 audio recordings of telephone calls between Mr. Alvarez and

17

Sovonnah Flores, mother of the two minor plaintiffs, while Mr. Alvarez was in jail. Dkt. No. 50 at

18

1. Plaintiffs Alma Ramirez and minors H.A. and L.A. argue that defendants’ discovery requests

19

are untimely and seek material that is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The Court finds this

20

matter suitable for decision without a hearing.
For the reasons stated below, the Court denies defendants’ motion.

21
22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

Plaintiffs filed this action on February 7, 2017. Dkt. No. 1. In the initial scheduling order,

24

the Court required the parties to complete fact discovery by November 14, 2017. Dkt. No. 24. On

25

October 23, 2018, the Court extended the fact discovery deadline to January 16, 2018. Dkt. No.

26

31. On January 3, 2018, the Court extended the fact discovery deadline a second time to February

27

16, 2018, in part to allow the parties to complete the depositions of key fact witnesses. Dkt. No.

28

33.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-3, all discovery motions were due to be filed no later than

1
2

February 23, 2018, seven days after the close of fact discovery.

3

II.

DISCUSSION
Mr. Alvarez’s Juvenile Criminal Records

4

A.

5

Defendants did not subpoena Mr. Alvarez’s juvenile criminal records or seek the

6

deposition of a County representative until December 28, 2017, only 19 days before the then-

7

existing January 16, 2018 discovery deadline. Dkt. No. 50 at 2. In late January 2018, the County

8

advised defendants that it could not produce the records or deponent without a state court order

9

pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 827. Id.; Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §
827(a)(2)(A) (“[J]uvenile case files . . . that pertain to a deceased child . . . shall be released to the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

public pursuant to an order by the juvenile court after a petition has been filed and interested

12

parties have been afforded an opportunity to file an objection.”). Defendants filed a petition for

13

such an order pursuant to section 827 on February 6, 2018 and are still awaiting a decision. Dkt.

14

No. 50 at 2. Defendants did not file a motion to compel the records or the deposition by the

15

deadline for filing discovery motions.

16

Defendants say that they did not learn about Mr. Alvarez’s juvenile records and their

17

potential relevance to damages until after the depositions of certain party witnesses. However,

18

defendants do not explain why they could not have discovered the existence and significance of

19

these records before taking these party depositions, and they do not explain why they waited until

20

the very end of the discovery period (or the extended discovery period) to take these party

21

depositions in the first place. Defendants had nine months to conduct discovery. Id. at 4.

22

Defendants were not diligent in seeking testimony concerning the juvenile records and have not

23

otherwise demonstrated good cause for modifying the case schedule under Rule 16(b)(4) of the

24

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

25

Even if the Court found good cause for defendants’ delay in seeking this discovery, the

26

Court is not persuaded that evidence of Mr. Alvarez’s juvenile criminal records is relevant to any

27

claim or defense in this case. Defendants argue that Mr. Alvarez’s “pattern of escalating criminal

28

behavior” would have led to significant jail or prison time had he lived, and that this incarceration
2

1

would have negatively affected his relationship with plaintiffs, thereby reducing the amount of

2

damages they can prove. Id. Defendants cite no authority to support their argument that this kind

3

of evidence is relevant to damages and the Court is aware of none. Their theory of relevance

4

appears to be entirely speculative, and the Court has serious concerns about its admissibility for

5

any purpose at trial, let alone to rebut plaintiffs’ claim for damages.1
B.

7

On December 28, 2017, defendants also subpoenaed the Santa Clara County District

8

Attorney for documents and a deposition relating to prosecution of Mr. Alvarez. Dkt. No. 50 at 2.

9

On February 27, 2018, defendants deposed a representative of the District Attorney and obtained

10

some responsive documents, including a summary of the jail calls. Id. Defendants did not file a

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

motion to compel production of the audio recordings by the deadline for filing discovery motions.

Audio Recordings of Jail Calls

Defendants say that they did not become aware of the existence of the jail calls until the

12
13

end of the discovery period in February 2018, and that they did not learn until March 2018 (after

14

the close of discovery) that they could not obtain the complete audio recordings of the jail calls

15

without a subpoena to the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. Id. at 4–5. Defendants do not

16

explain why they waited until the end of the discovery period to seek discovery from the District

17

Attorney, or why they delayed taking the District Attorney’s deposition for nearly two months

18

after serving the subpoena on December 28, 2017.
Even if the Court found good cause for defendants’ delay in seeking this discovery, the

19
20

Court is not persuaded that the audio recordings of Mr. Alvarez’s telephone calls are relevant to

21

any claim or defense. Defendants say that the audio recordings of the calls reveal that Mr. Alvarez

22

threatened Ms. Flores. Id. at 4. They argue that the negative or hostile relationship between Mr.

23

Alvarez and Ms. Flores in turn reflects on Mr. Alvarez’s relationship with the minor plaintiffs.

24

Defendants argue that these calls constitute relevant evidence rebutting plaintiffs’ damages claims.

25

Defendants cite no authority to support their argument that this kind of evidence is relevant to

26

damages and the Court is aware of none. As with the juvenile criminal records, defendants’ theory

27
28

1

The Court does not decide the question of admissibility here.
3

1

of relevance appears to be entirely speculative, particularly given that the calls took place before

2

the births of both minor plaintiffs. Id. at 7.

3

III.

4

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies defendants’ request to re-open fact

5

discovery to obtain evidence of Mr. Alvarez’s juvenile criminal records and his telephone calls

6

from jail.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 29, 2018

9
10
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

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