Hylton v. Anytime Towing et al

Filing 147

ORDER Following In Camera Review. Defendant is ordered to respond to Plaintiff's requests for production nos. 2 and 3 no later than October 5, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 9/18/2012.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jao)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RICHARD HYLTON, 11 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 14 15 16 17 ANYTIME TOWING, RICKENBACKER COLLECTION SERVICES, RICKENBACKER GROUP, RICKENBACKER COLLECTION SYSTEM, CARLOS CASAS, ENRIQUEZ, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, DOES 1-10, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 11-cv-1039 JLS (WMc) ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 On August 14, 2012, Plaintiff pro se filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and 21 to Answer Interrogatories and for Sanctions in the above entitled case. [ECF No. 124.] . On August 22 29, 2012, Defendant City of San Diego filed an opposition brief. [ECF No. 136.] On September 5, 23 2012, Plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of his motion to compel. [ECF No. 138.] Also on 24 September 7, 2012, Defendant Anytime Towing filed an opposition brief. [ECF No. 140.] On 25 September 12, 2012, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel. On September 13, 26 2012, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying part Plaintiff’s motion to compel and 27 directing Defendant Andal to lodge the requests for production and the answers or objections to the 28 requests for production for in camera review. [ECF No. 146.] The materials were lodged with 11cv1039 JLS (WMc) 1 Judge McCurine’s chambers on September 13, 2012. The Court has completed its in camera review 2 and issues the following order. 3 II. IN CAMERA REVIEW 4 Under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is to produce all relevant 5 documents in his “possession, custody, or control.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1). A party may be 6 required to produce a document that is in the possession of a nonparty entity if the party has the 7 legal right to obtain the document. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 619 8 (N.D.Cal.1995). The term “control” is broadly construed, and it includes documents that the 9 responding party has the legal right to obtain from third parties. See id. (citations omitted); 7 10 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice, § 34.14[2][b], at 34–73 to 34–75 (footnotes 11 omitted). 12 The Court has reviewed Defendant Andal’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests for 13 production. Defendant Andal’s responses as to requests for production Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are 14 sufficient and require no further response. Only an objection, however, was given as to requests 15 for production 2 and 3. Given the broad parameters of Rule 34, the Court ORDERS Defendant 16 Andal to serve responses to those requests only: 17 a.) Request for Production No. 2 - Defendant Andal has objected to this request on the 18 grounds that it is overly broad, indefinite as to time, vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as to 19 “refer to or relate to your training.” The objection is OVERRULED. The Court finds 20 Plaintiff’s request for materials which show Defendant Andal’s training, if any, as an officer 21 regarding the acceptance of alternate evidence of automobile registration under California 22 Vehicle Code section 4462 is not broad, vague or unintelligible. Under Federal Rules of Civil 23 Procedure, parties may obtain discovery of material that is (1) “not privileged” and (2) “relevant 24 to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A relevant 25 matter is “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear 26 on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. 27 Cal. 1995) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).) Records 28 concerning training and performance, have been held to be relevant on the issues of credibility, 2 11cv1039 JLS (WMc) 1 notice to the employer, ratification by the employer, motive of the officers and malicious intent. 2 See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (citing Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 3 227, 229 (S.D. Cal. 1993). Accordingly, Defendant Andal is ORDERED to produce relevant 4 documents, if any, in his possession, custody, or control in response to Interrogatory No. 2. 5 b.) Request for Production No. 3 - Defendant Andal has objected to this request on the 6 grounds that it is overly broad, indefinite as to time, vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as to 7 “refer to or relate to your training.” The objection is OVERRULED. The Court finds 8 Plaintiff’s request for materials which show Defendant Andal’s training, if any, as an officer 9 regarding the presentation of temporary receipts under California Vehicle Code section 4462 is 10 not broad, vague or unintelligible. Accordingly, Defendant Andal is ORDERED to produce 11 relevant documents, if any, in his possession, custody, or control in response to 12 Interrogatory No. 3. 13 Courts have fulfilled a plaintiff’s need for discovery while protecting a defendant’s 14 privacy by ordering the production of documents subject to a protective order limiting the access 15 to the material at issue to plaintiff, his counsel and those experts who require such information to 16 formulate an opinion. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995.) 17 If responsive documents to requests for production nos. 2 and 3 are found, the Court orders the 18 parties to enter into an appropriate protective order governing the documents to be produced. 19 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 In accordance with the Court’s findings expressed above, Defendant is ordered to 21 respond to Plaintiff’s requests for production nos. 2 and 3 no later than October 5, 2012. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 18, 2012 24 Hon. William McCurine, Jr. U.S. Magistrate Judge United States District Court 25 26 27 28 3 11cv1039 JLS (WMc)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?