Carrillo et al v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al
Filing
95
ORDER Granting 84 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and to Extend Discovery Period in regard to the production of the subject Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Office of Internal Affairs reports subject to the protective order that the Inte rnal Affairs reports may not be disclosed by Plaintiffs to any third person who is not involved as a party, attorney, member of the attorneys staff or a witness in this litigation. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 02/14/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
PETRA CARRILLO, individually, as Special
Administratrix of the Estate of IVAN CARRILLO,
and as parent and natural guardian of ARLEEN
CARRILLO, AYLEEN CARRILLO, and
JAYLEEN CARRILLO,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
) Case No. 2:10-cv-02122-KJD-GWF
)
vs.
) ORDER
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
) Motion to Compel (#84)
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
14
15
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and to Extend Discovery
16
Period (#84), filed on December 20, 2012; Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s
17
(“LVMPD”) Opposition to Motion to Compel (#88), filed on January 4, 2013; and Defendant
18
Aaron Carpenter’s Joinder to Defendant LVMPD’s Opposition and Opposition to Motion to
19
Compel (#90, #91), filed on January 7, 2013. The Court conducted a hearing in this matter on
20
January 29, 2013 during which most of the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ motion were resolved.
21
The one remaining issue is whether Defendant LVMPD should be required to produce its
22
Office of Internal Affairs reports regarding the investigation of the incident that is the subject of
23
this lawsuit. Defendant LVMPD has asserted the official information privilege in regard to these
24
documents which include: (1) a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Memorandum, dated
25
January 31, 2011; (2) Adjudication of Complaint, dated January 6-13, 2011; (3) an Investigative
26
Report of Complaint, dated December 13, 2010; and (4) an Internal Affairs Disposition Report,
27
dated December 22, 2012. At the Court’s direction, these documents were submitted for in camera
28
review by the Court.
1
BACKGROUND
2
This case arises out of a police pursuit of a motor vehicle operated by Plaintiffs’ decedent,
3
Ivan Carrillo, on May 19, 2011. A citizen allegedly called the “911” dispatcher and reported that
4
Mr. Carrillo’s vehicle was being driven erratically. A motorcycle officer attempted to stop the
5
vehicle, but Mr. Carrillo sped away. Other officers in patrol cars joined the pursuit and the police
6
department’s helicopter also responded. During the course of the pursuit, Officer Ubbens
7
attempted a “PIT maneuver” in which the officer intentionally causes his vehicle to collide with the
8
rear corner of the suspect’s vehicle, thereby causing the suspect’s vehicle to spin out of control and
9
come to a stop. Officer Ubben’s PIT maneuver was unsuccessful and Mr. Carrillo continued to
10
speed away. Defendant Officer Aaron Carpenter’s vehicle allegedly then made contact with Mr.
11
Carrillo’s vehicle. Mr. Carrillo lost control of the vehicle which crossed over into the opposite
12
travel lane where it was struck by two other vehicles. Mr. Carrillo sustained fatal injuries in the
13
collision. Defendant Aaron Carpenter was subsequently terminated by the Las Vegas Metropolitan
14
Police for allegedly violating a superior officer’s order to cease the pursuit of Mr. Carrillo’s
15
vehicle. Defendant Carpenter was also criminally prosecuted for reckless driving/manslaughter in
16
regard to the subject incident, but was acquitted at trial.
17
Plaintiffs’ Complaint (#1) alleges claims against Defendants LVMPD and/or Aaron Cooper
18
for violation of the decedent’s civil rights, including the use of excessive and lethal force in
19
violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, municipal liability against Defendant LVMPD
20
by engaging in a custom, policy or practice of permitting officers to use the PIT maneuver despite
21
its dangerous and potential fatal application, a claim for wrongful death under Nevada law, battery,
22
negligence, negligent training and supervision, negligent hiring and retention, and intentional
23
infliction of emotional distress.
24
Defendant Carpenter has disclosed Jeffrey A. Martin as his expert witness in this action on
25
the issues relating to whether Defendant Carpenter was at fault in regard to the subject accident or
26
violated LVMPD rules, policies or procedures in regard to the subject accident. Mr. Martin also
27
served as Defendant Carpenter’s expert during the criminal prosecution and also during arbitration
28
proceedings relating to the termination of his employment with the LVMPD. In his July 26, 2012
2
1
expert report in this action, Mr. Martin states: “In forming my opinions in this case, I reviewed,
2
studied, and considered materials that are specific to this case as well as materials of general
3
circulation.” Defendant Carpenter’s Opposition (#91), Exhibit C, Martin Report, pg. 3. Mr.
4
Martin then lists the “specific case materials I have reviewed to date ...” which include the LVMPD
5
Office of Internal Affairs reports that Defendant LVMPD claims are protected from disclosure to
6
Plaintiffs under the official information privilege. Id.
7
During his December 19, 2012 deposition in this case, Mr. Martin testified that in preparing
8
for his deposition he reviewed the reports prepared “in this matter” and the testimony in the
9
criminal trial. He also testified that he reviewed “most of - - probably not quite all, but most of the
10
items listed in the Rule 26 report, with the exception of, if I made a mistake, and I actually listed
11
documents that I did not rely on for my opinion in this case.” Defendant Carpenter’s Opposition
12
(#91), Exhibit B, Martin Deposition, pg. 9. In regard to the Internal Affairs reports, Mr. Martin
13
testified:
14
I did review those briefly during the preparation for the criminal trial
and in preparation for the arbitration.
15
16
17
However, I have not looked at them since then. They have no
material in them which I based my opinions, and I probably couldn’t
even remember the content at this point in time. I wish my memory
were that good that I could.
18
Martin Deposition, pg. 10.
19
Defendant LVMPD represents that it has produced to Plaintiffs “its comprehensive 80-page
20
investigation report (a copy of which it attached to its opposition), officer interview transcripts,
21
witness interview transcripts, voluntary statements, accident diagrams, photographs, the names of
22
all officers involved, toxicology records, 911 recordings, and radio traffic between officers.
23
Defendant LVMPD’s Opposition (#88), pg. 2. Defendant LVMPD asserts that it is necessary,
24
however, “to assert a privilege over its IA file, which includes LVMPD findings, comments and
25
recommendation surrounding officer discipline.” Id.
26
During the hearing on this matter, the Court inquired as to how Mr. Martin came into
27
possession of the Internal Affairs reports to which Defendant LVMPD asserts the privilege.
28
Defense counsel informed the Court that the reports were probably provided to Defendant
3
1
Carpenter’s union representatives during the termination proceedings, and the union, in turn,
2
provided the reports to Mr. Martin.
3
DISCUSSION
4
Certain police department records may be protected from disclosure under the qualified
5
“official information” privilege. Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 667-668 (N.D.Cal.
6
1987), citing Kerr v. Dist. Ct. for N.D.Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975). See also Sanchez v.
7
City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc ) (federal common law
8
recognizes a qualified privilege for official information). “To determine whether the information
9
sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential
10
disadvantages. If the latter is greater, the privilege bars discovery.” Sanchez, supra, citing Jepsen
11
v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 610 F.2d 1379, 1384-85 (5th Cir. 1980).
12
In order for the court to weigh the potential benefits and disadvantages of disclosure, the
13
party asserting the privilege is required to submit a declaration or affidavit under oath and penalty
14
of perjury from the head of the department that has control over the information. Boar Inc. v.
15
County of Nye, 2010 WL 5070888, *3 (D.Nev. 2010), citing Kerr v. Dist. Ct. for N.D.Cal., 511
16
F.2d 192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975), Miller v. Panucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 300 (C.D.Cal. 1992), and Kelly v.
17
City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. at 656. The declaration or affidavit must include: (1) an affirmation
18
that the agency generated or collected the material in issue and has in fact maintained its
19
confidentiality (if the agency has shared some or all of the material with other governmental
20
agencies it must disclose their identity and describe the circumstances surrounding the disclosure,
21
including steps taken to assure preservation of the confidentiality of the material), (2) a statement
22
that the official has personally reviewed the material in question, (3) a specific identification of the
23
governmental or privacy interests that would be threatened by disclosure of the material to plaintiff
24
and/or his lawyer, (4) a description of how disclosure subject to a carefully crafted protective order
25
would create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental or privacy interest, and (5) a
26
projection of how much harm would be done to the threatened interests if the disclosure were
27
made. Id.
28
...
4
1
Here, Defendant LVMPD has not submitted such a declaration or affidavit. Its assertion of
2
the official information privilege therefore fails on this procedural requirement alone. Even absent
3
the procedural defect in Defendants’ assertion of the privilege, the circumstances in this case do not
4
support its application to the subject documents.
5
Kelly v. City of San Jose states that the balancing test should be moderately pre-weighted in
6
favor of disclosure based on the public policy that privileges should be narrowly construed and the
7
policy supporting the enforcement of the civil rights statutes through civil actions filed by
8
aggrieved private parties. 114 F.R.D. at 660-662. The court cited the non-exhaustive factors listed
9
in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D.Pa. 1973) that courts may consider in determining
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
whether the competing interests, on balance, favor disclosure or protection of the information:
(1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes
by discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2)
the impact upon persons who have given information of having their
identities disclosed; (3) the degree to which governmental
self-evaluation and consequent program improvement will be chilled
by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is factual data or
evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking the discovery is an
actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either
pending or reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question;
(6) whether the police investigation has been completed; (7) whether
any intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may
arise from the investigation; (8) whether the plaintiff's suit is
non-frivolous and brought in good faith; whether the information
sought is available through other discovery or from other sources;
and (10) the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's
case.
19
20
Kelly, 114 at 663.
21
The weight to be given to these factors depends on the circumstances of the particular case.
22
For example, the government’s interests in protecting the identities of confidential police
23
informants, or maintaining confidentiality during an ongoing criminal investigation, are more likely
24
to outweigh the plaintiff’s interest in discovering all relevant information. The government’s
25
confidentiality interest is not as strong, however, when the events are long since past and there will
26
be no further criminal prosecution or internal affairs follow-up arising out of the incident. Kelly,
27
114 F.R.D. at 662, citing Spell v. McDaniel, 591 F.Supp. 1090, 1119 (E.D.N.C. 1984). The police
28
also have a legitimate interest in protecting internal law enforcement procedures that are not readily
5
1
accessible to those who might endanger or frustrate the police in the legitimate performance of their
2
duties. Where such procedures are relevant to the officer’s conduct in the case at issue, however,
3
disclosure can generally be made under a well-crafted protective order that restricts the disclosure
4
of such information to the parties and/or their counsel.
5
Kelly noted that some courts have held that evaluative statements and opinions in internal
6
affairs reports are entitled to almost absolute protection from disclosure. The court, however,
7
questioned the reasoning underpinning this view:
8
9
10
11
12
There are at least two problems with the reasoning that supports this
view. One is that the premise that supports it (that investigating
officers will be less forthright in expressing their opinions if there is a
risk of disclosure) is empirically unsupported and very debatable.
The other problem with this line of reasoning is that after it
acknowledges the great importance of enforcing federal civil rights
policies it fails to articulate a reason for deciding to ascribe less
weight to that enforcement effort than to the unmeasured harm to
government interests that might follow from disclosure of evaluative
material in internal affairs files.
13
14
15
16
17
Since privileges operate in derogation of the truth finding process,
and since the policies that inform federal civil rights statutes are
profoundly important, courts should not use empirically unsupported
and debatable assumptions to rationalize shifting a burden of
justification away from the party asserting privilege (where the
burden of justification classically rests) and on to a plaintiff who is
attempting simultaneously to enforce his rights and policies that the
people, speaking through Constitutional amendments and federal
statutes, have elevated to the highest levels of priority.
18
19
Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 664.
20
In response to the assertion that disclosure will adversely affect the police department’s
21
ability to conduct investigations and implement appropriate discipline or training, Kelly states that
22
it is, at least, equally valid to assert that the investigating and responding officers’ knowledge that
23
their statements and opinions may be disclosed and scrutinized in a subsequent judicial proceeding
24
will encourage them to conduct thorough and honest investigations. Id. at 664-665.
25
Several federal district courts have agreed with Kelly’s statement that evaluative statements
26
and opinions in internal affairs reports are not necessarily entitled to a higher level of protection.
27
Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 612-614 (N.D.Cal. 1995); Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D.
28
292, 301-02 (C.D.Cal. 1992); Chism v. County of San Bernadino, 159 F.R.D. 531, 533-35
6
1
(C.D.Cal. 1994); King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180, 192-193 (E.D.N.Y. 1988). In Torres v. Kuzniasz,
2
936 F.Supp. 1201, 1211-12 (D.N.J. 1996), the court stated that the distinction between factual
3
versus evaluative information no longer has its former significance where a “Monell claim” is
4
alleged because supervisory evaluative opinions contained in internal affairs reports are highly
5
relevant to proving municipal liability under § 1983 and should therefore be discoverable. King v.
6
Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180, 192-193 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) also states that internal affairs investigators’
7
evaluations and opinions are not entitled to a high level of protection where there is no ongoing
8
criminal or internal affairs investigation.
9
In this case, the Plaintiffs have asserted a Monell claim against Defendant LVMPD based
10
on its alleged custom, policy or practice of permitting its police officers to perform the dangerous
11
and potentially fatal PIT maneuver. See Complaint (#1), paragraphs 42-50. Defendant LVMPD’s
12
findings, comments and recommendations regarding the discipline of Defendant Carpenter are
13
therefore relevant to Plaintiffs’ Monell claim. The internal affairs and criminal prosecutions arising
14
out of the subject incident are also completed. Disclosure of the Internal Affairs reports to
15
Plaintiffs’ counsel will therefore not impair any other ongoing investigations. Finally, Defendant
16
Carpenter’s expert witness Mr. Martin has received and reviewed the Internal Affairs reports in
17
regard to preparing his opinions in the related termination and criminal proceedings. Although Mr.
18
Martin testified that the reports “have no material in them which I based my opinions,” this does
19
not make them irrelevant to his opinions.
20
CONCLUSION
21
Based on the foregoing, Defendant LVMPD has not met its burden, procedurally or
22
substantively, to show that the subject Internal Affairs reports should be protected from disclosure
23
pursuant to the official information privilege. The Court will, however, enter a protective order
24
that the Internal Affairs reports may not be disclosed by Plaintiffs to any third person who is not
25
involved as a party, attorney, member of the attorney’s staff or a witness in this litigation.
26
Accordingly,
27
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and to Extend Discovery
28
Period (#84) is granted in regard to the production of the subject Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
7
1
Department Office of Internal Affairs reports subject to the protective order that the Internal Affairs
2
reports may not be disclosed by Plaintiffs to any third person who is not involved as a party,
3
attorney, member of the attorney’s staff or a witness in this litigation.
4
DATED this 14th day of February, 2013.
5
6
7
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?