Farjado v. El Centro, City of et al

Filing 36

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request For Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis on 12/10/2013. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Defendants.

21

23
24
25

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS

THE CITY OF EL CENTRO, a
municipal corporation; TERI
BROWNLEE, an individual; JIM
MCGINLEY, an individual; EDDIE
MADUENO, an individual; MIKE
CRANKSHAW, an individual; JEFF
MASON, an individual; MARIO
SANABRIA, an individual; ALVARO
RAMIREZ, an individual; JOHN
SEAMAN, an individual; ROBERT
SAWYER, an individual; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive.

20

22

CASE NO. 12-CV-1521-GPC-(PCL)

REBECA FAJARDO,

I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Court’s Pitchess Procedures, Steven J. Lowery, attorney for the
Defendants’, submitted to the Court several documents identified as
complaints/investigations1 for an in camera review. The documents are number stamped
Doc. No. 0497 through Doc. No. 0957.

26
27
28

1

These documents were in response to a discovery request for citizen complaints, internal
complaints, internal affairs investigations, prior conduct of sexual harassment and/or gender
discrimination, with regard to the following Defendants: Sergeant Robert Sawyer, Sergeant Mario
Sanabria and Sergeant John Seaman.
1

12-CV-1521-GPC-(PCL)

1

Plaintiff’s attorney argues that the documents sought are material to the lawsuit

2

arising from gender discrimination, sexual harassment, denial of due process, retaliation,

3

civil rights violations, failure to compensate Plaintiff for overtime pay and violations of

4

the Police Officer Bill of Rights. Defendants argue that the material requested is not

5

relevant to Plaintiff’s lawsuit and claims right-of-privacy privilege.
The Court, after a thorough review of the submitted documents, finds that all

6
7

documents submitted are irrelevant to the claims at issue.
II. DISCUSSION

8

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b), provides that any non-privileged

9
10

material that is relevant to a party’s claim or defense is discoverable. To be discoverable,

11

the information does not have to be admissible; it needs to be relevant information that

12

appears to be reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.

13

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Moreover, “Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-

14

based right of privacy that can be raised in response to discovery requests.” Soto v. City

15

of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 1995). “Resolution of a privacy

16

objection ... requires a balancing of the need for the information sought against the

17

privacy right asserted.” Id.
In this instance, the Court finds that the documents reviewed did not contain any

18
19

information remotely relating to sexual harassment, discrimination and did not

20

demonstrate a negative implication for truthfulness and veracity. Furthermore, the Court

21

finds that the submitted documents are not relevant to the claims of denial of due process,

22

retaliation, violation of civil rights, failure to compensate or violations to the Police

23

Officer Bill of Rights.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

12-CV-1521-GPC-(PCL)

III. CONCLUSION

1
2
3

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for discovery of Doc. No. 0497
through Doc. No. 0957.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8
9

DATED: December 10, 2013

Peter C. Lewis
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

12-CV-1521-GPC-(PCL)