Ramirez et al v. Escajeda et al
Filing
196
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs' 171 Motion to Compel Defendant City of El Paso to Supplement Responses to Five Requests for Production. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4)
Case 3:17-cv-00193-DCG Document 196 Filed 11/02/22 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION
MARIA RAMIREZ and PEDRO
RAMIREZ, as Representatives ofthe Estate
and Statutory Death Beneficiaries of
DANIEL ANTONIO RAMIREZ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
EP-17-CV-00193-DCG
ORDER
Plaintiffs Maria Ramirez and Pedro Ramirez move to compel Defendant City of El Paso,
Texas to supplement its responses to five of Plaintiffs' requests for production. Mot., ECF No.
171; Reply, ECF No. 176. The City opposes Plaintiffs' Motion. Resp. ECF No. 172.
So far, this case has spanned a period of over five years. On December 15, 2017,
Plaintiffs sent their initial requests for production to the City. Mot. Ex. A. One month later, the
City provided Plaintiffs with its initial responses to their production requests. Id. Ex. B. Over
two years after that, on July 29, 2020, the City provided Plaintiffs its third supplemental
response. Id Ex. C. Since then, the City has not supplemented its responses. See Mot. at 2-3.
On May 20, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, seeking to compel a limited set of
supplemental responses related to former-Defendant Ruben Escajeda, Jr. 's disciplinary history
and use of force. Mot. at 2; Reply at 1.
The City resists Plaintiffs' Motion, arguing that their request is irrelevant and untimely.
Resp. at 2-5. Plaintiffs counter that the duty to supplement discovery extends beyond the close
of discovery. Reply at 2-3.
-I-
Case 3:17-cv-00193-DCG Document 196 Filed 11/02/22 Page 2 of 4
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires parties to supplement interrogatory responses
and disclosures made under Rule 26(a).
FED.
R. C1v. P. 26(e)(l). Rule 26(e)(l)(A) contemplates
that parties must make supplemental disclosures after discovery closes:
A party . . . must supplement ... its disclosure or response ... if the party learns
that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect,
and ifthe additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known
to the parties during the discovery process or in writing.
See FED. R. C1v. P. 26(e)(l)(A) (emphasis added). Indeed, "[t]he duty to supplement continues
beyond discovery." Covil Corp. ex rel. Protopapas v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 544 F. Supp. 3d
588, 595-96 (M.D.N.C. 2021) (collecting cases). Thus, the City can't escape its duty to
supplement its disclosures and responses merely because Plaintiffs filed their Motion after the
close of discovery.
The City next objects that Plaintiffs are asking for irrelevant information. Resp. at 3.
The City argues that "Plaintiffs have not met their burden" of establishing that Escajeda's
policing records created between July 2020 and now are relevant. Id This arg'-:lment places the
burden on the wrong party. It's the City's burden to show that the discovery Plaintiffs want is
irrelevant. See, e.g., McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1485
(5th Cir. 1990) ("[T]he party resisting discovery must show specifically how ... [the request] is
not relevant .... (emphasis added)); LULAC v. Abbott, 3:21-CV-00259-DCG-JES-JVB, 2022
WL 3593055, at *2-3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2022) (three-judge court) (discussing allocation of
the burden).
"Relevant information encompasses 'any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could
lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case."' Merrill v.
Wajjle House, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 467,470 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.
Sanders, 437 U.S. 340,351 (1978)). As the definition suggests, the scope of relevant
-2-
Case 3:17-cv-00193-DCG Document 196 Filed 11/02/22 Page 3 of 4
information can be extensive. See id. ("Relevancy is broadly construed." (quotation omitted)).
Contrary to what the City seems to suggest, it's not settled that post-incident conduct is
irrelevant to a plaintiffs Monell claim. 1 See Resp. at 3 ("Nothing that happened five years after
the incident in question is remotely relevant to any claim or defense of an incident that occurred
in June of2015."). No doubt, Plaintiffs do little to address why they think the information is
relevant, see generally Mot. at 1-5 (asserting the "information ... is ... relevant" without
further explanation); Reply at 3 (similar), but it is not their burden to do so, see, e.g., McLeod,
894 F.2d at 1485, at least in the first instance, see Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Yang Kun
"Michael" Chung, 325 F.R.D. 578, 595 (N.D. Tex. 2017) (explaining that while the burden is on
the party resisting discovery to show why a discovery request is irrelevant, ''it is good practice
for a movant to explain the relevance ... of its discovery requests, and ... a failure [to do
so] ... may be determinative"); McKinney/Pear/ Rest. Partners L.P. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 322
F.R.D. 235, 243 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (explaining that "[t]he party seeking discovery, to prevail on a
motion to compel ... may well need to make its own showing" of relevance "in opposition to the
resisting party's showing").
The City has a continuing obligation to supplement its disclosures and responses. FED. R.
CIV. P. 26(e)(l)(A). Plaintiffs request for the City to comply with this requirement is not
1
The Court assumes, without deciding, that Escajeda's post-incident records may bear on
whether a pattern or practice of similar alleged constitutional violations existed at the time of the incident.
See, e.g., Valle v. City of Houston, 613 F.3d 536,548 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that plaintiff can't show a
pattern of conduct under Monell by only pointing to two similar constitutional violations that occurred
after the conduct that gave rise to the case); Estate of Davis ex rel. McCully v. City of North Richland
Hills; 406 F.3d 375, 383 (5th Cir. 2005) (noting that a municipality must have "notice of a pattern of
similar violations" (emphasis added)); Sanchez v. Gomez, EP-l 7-CV-133-PRM, 2020 WL I 036046, at
*15-17 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2020) (discussing, but not taking a position on, whether plaintiffs can use
evidence of conduct that took place after the alleged violation to prove a pattern of violative conduct);
Mueller v. Cruz, No. SACV1301274CJCJCGX, 2015 WL 9455565, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2015)
("The Ninth Circuit has held that the behavior of policymakers after the constitutional violation
is relevant to Monell liability insofar as it reveals the municipality's policies already in place at the time of
the constitutional violation." (citing Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 647 (9th Cir. 1991 ))).
-3-
Case 3:17-cv-00193-DCG Document 196 Filed 11/02/22 Page 4 of 4
untimely. The City fails to show why the information Plaintiffs want is irrelevant. The Court
thus GRANTS Plaintiffs' "Motion to Compel Defendant City of El Paso to Supplement
Responses to Five Requests for Production" (ECF No. 171 ).
So ORDERED and SIGNED this
2
.)
day of November 2022.
AV DC. GOADE RAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
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?