Gibson v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 88

ORDER that the Court finds that the internal affairs documents related to the specific statements of complaint identified are not relevant. Defense counsel is instructed to contact chambers directly to set up a time to retrieve the documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 6/14/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10

CELESTINE GIBSON,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00900-GMN-CWH
ORDER

On April 19, 2013, the undersigned conducted a hearing on several discovery motions,

17

including Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (#49). In that motion, plaintiff sought to compel

18

production of the “Internal Affairs Documents involving Jesus Arevalo.” See Pl.’s Mot. (#49) at

19

6:12-14. Defendant objected on the grounds that the request was vague, ambiguous and

20

potentially invasive of Jesus Arevalo’s privacy rights. Id. at 6:14-16. Notwithstanding the

21

objection, a privilege log was attached identifying the “Internal Affair Statements of Complaint

22

lodged against Officer Arevalo.” Id.

23

During the April 19, 2013 hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that one of the

24

“overriding themes” of the case is that “officers are not adequately punished for wrongdoing.”

25

See Tr. of Proceedings (#77) at 33:3-18. The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s counsel that, for

26

purposes of discovery and pursuant to the standard set forth in Rule 26(b)(1), relevance in this

27

case is not limited to officer involved shootings, but includes use of force generally. With that

28

understanding, the Court required the in camera production of the internal affairs documents
related to Officer Arevalo. After review, the Court finds that the internal affairs documents

1

related to the specific statements of complaint identified are not relevant, even under the broad

2

standard of Rule 26. This holding is specifically limited to the statements that were the subject

3

of the in camera review. Defense counsel is instructed to contact chambers directly to set up a

4

time to retrieve the documents.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: June 14, 2013.

7
8
9

C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-