Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA DOE, et al,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD

ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 40) is before the court. After review of the parties’ 

joint statement on the discovery dispute (ECF No. 42), the court finds oral argument to be 

unnecessary. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for March 15, 2023 will be vacated. For the 

reasons set forth below, the undersigned will grant, in part, the motion.

I. Background

As relevant to the current motion, the plaintiffs allege they were coerced by Sacramento 

County Sheriff’s Deputy Darryl Roderick into vacating their apartment without legal process. 

(ECF No. 42 at 5.) Plaintiffs allege Roderick demanded plaintiff Maria Doe “speak English,” 

refused to provide interpretation, and used threats of force to illegally evict the plaintiffs. (Id.)

The defendants who oppose this motion deny that Roderick effected an eviction and allege the 

plaintiffs moved out of the space after apparently reaching an agreement with Defendant Estrada, 

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 45 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the person who had illegally sublet the living space to plaintiffs in violation of a lease with the 

property owner. (Id. at 6.)

The second amended complaint asserts cause of action against the County Defendants for 

wrongful eviction; deprivation of property without due process of law under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (as 

to Roderick); intentional discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 

interference with rights by threats, intimidation, and coercion in violation of the Bane Act, Cal. 

Civ. Code § 52.1; discrimination in housing in violation of the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51; 

discrimination on the basis of national origin in violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 11135; negligence; 

and mandamus. (ECF No. 32.) On September 15, 2022, the court granted in part defendants’

motion to dismiss. The court dismissed municipal liability claims against the County and the 

Sheriff’s Office and denied the motion to dismiss on all other counts. (ECF No. 34.)

Through this motion, plaintiffs seek to compel defendants County of Sacramento, 

Sacramento Sheriff’s Office, and Darryl Roderick (collectively, “defendants”) to produce 

documents responsive to plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiffs 

seek further production to their requests numbered 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23, as set 

forth below.

II. Legal Standards

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that 

is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 

needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake 

in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access 

to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense 

of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. ...

Fed. Rule Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

“A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b)... to 

produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the 

following items in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a).

When a party fails to provide discovery and the parties’ attempts to resolve the dispute 

without court intervention are unsuccessful, the opposing party may seek an order compelling that 

discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of 

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 45 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy requirements of Rule 26(b)(1).” Louisiana Pac. 

Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing 

Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995). In turn, the party opposing the 

discovery “has the burden of showing that discovery should not be allowed, and also has the 

burden of clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections with competent evidence.” Id.

(citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002)).

III. Discussion

A. Personnel Records (Requests 14 & 15)

Request No. 14

All DOCUMENTS relating to training RODERICK.

Request No. 15

All DOCUMENTS relating to RODERICK’s personnel file, including but not limited to hiring, 

change in position, performance, complaints, and discipline records.

Ruling

Defendants produced a responsive timeline of Roderick’s employment and a printout of 

trainings administered by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”). 

(ECF No. 42 at 30.) Plaintiffs seek additional training records (such as “policy training morning 

events”), performance records, and disciplinary records not yet produced. (Id.) 

Defendants indicated there were no additional “demotion or disciplinary records” being 

withheld. (ECF No. 42 at 29.) Defendants argue these requests should be limited further because

“firearms, force, and a whole of the ordinary training provided to deputies is not relevant to this 

case.” (Id. at 31.)

Defendants’ objections1 based on relevance and scope are overruled. Personnel files, 

including training records, are discoverable in cases in federal court where officers are alleged to 

have violated a plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., Garrett v. City & County of San 

1 Not all of defendants’ initial objections to the requests at issue in this motion were maintained in 

the joint statement. Objections asserted in discovery responses but not raised in briefing are 

waived. See Bingham v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., No. 821CV00836JLSJDEX, 2022 WL 886116, at *3 

(C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2022).

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 45 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1519, n.6 (9th Cir. 1987) (“personnel files are discoverable in federal 

question cases, including Title VII actions, despite claims of privilege”); Soto v. City of Concord, 

162 F.R.D. 603, 615 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (personnel files of defendant-officers in excessive force 

cases contain a variety of relevant information, and are discoverable). Roderick’s personnel file 

and any additional training records, performance records, and disciplinary records that have not 

been produced are within the scope of discovery for plaintiffs’ claims. Thus, the motion to 

compel is granted as to Requests 14 and 15.

B. Call Records and Use of Interpretation Services (Requests 11, 12, 19, and 20)

Request No. 11

All DOCUMENTS relating to RODERICK using interpretation or translation services from any 

source, including but not limited to a professional interpretation service, SHERIFF’S OFFICE 

personnel, or a member of the public.

Request No. 12

All DOCUMENTS relating to any call records involving RODERICK which involve or refer to 

language interpretation or translation, including but not limited to records showing the terms 

“interpret,” “interpretation,” “translate,” “translation,” “language,” “English,” or “Spanish.”

Request No. 19

DOCUMENTS sufficient to show all SHERIFF’S OFFICE dispatch or patrol calls during which 

officers requested or [utilized] interpretation or translation, including the type of call, the location, 

the district, and the type of interpretation or translation employed.

Request No. 20

All DOCUMENTS relating to any call records involving SHERIFF’S OFFICE patrol or field 

officers which refer to language interpretation or translation, including but not limited to records 

showing the terms “interpret,” “interpretation,” “translate,” “translation,” “language,” “English,” 

or “Spanish.”

Ruling

In Request 12, plaintiffs seek CAD records specific to Deputy Roderick relating to 

language interpretation or translation. In the broader Request 20, plaintiffs seek these documents 

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 45 Filed 03/10/23 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

as to the entirety of the sheriff’s office. Plaintiffs argue these records are relevant to learn the 

prevalence of calls involving limited English proficiency persons and the adequacy—or 

inadequacy—of defendants’ response, as relevant to plaintiffs’ discrimination claims under Title 

VI and Section 11135. (ECF No. 42 at 8-9.) In meet and confer, plaintiffs agreed to limit these 

requests to the time period April 7, 2015 to present. (Id. at 17.)

As to Requests 12 and 20, defendants argue a lack of relevance and, specifically, that the 

material sought would not tend to show intentional discrimination as required for a Title VI 

claim. (ECF No. 42 at 11 & 17.) As defendants recognize, though, plaintiffs also proceed on a 

state law claim under California Government Code section 11135, which prohibits discrimination 

“under[ ] any program or activity that ... receives any financial assistance from the state.” 

Defendants do not argue that the state law claim requires proof of intentional discrimination, as 

opposed to a disparate impact. Accordingly, defendants’ relevance objections are overruled as to 

Requests 12 and 20.

As to Requests 19 and 20, defendants argue that producing the computer-aided dispatch 

(“CAD”) reports as requested would be burdensome due to necessary redaction. (ECF No. 42 at 

13.) Defendants also state the parties’ protective order currently in effect would be insufficient to 

protect sensitive private information related to the ongoing prosecution of crimes. (Id.) However, 

defendants offer no specific evidence of undue burden or expense. Defendants also do not support 

their claim that the protective order would not adequately protect sensitive information with any 

further argument or evidence. Defendants do not meet their burden of clarifying, explaining, and 

supporting their objections with competent evidence.

Defendants argue Requests 19 and 20 seek the same records, just worded in a slightly 

different way. (ECF No. 42 at 25.) Plaintiffs do not claim they seek any different documents. The 

court will grant the motion to compel as to Request 12 and Request 19, with its specific search 

terms, both limited to the time period April 7, 2015 to present. To the extent Request 20 is 

duplicative, the motion to compel is denied.

Request 11 seeks the same documents as Request 12 but is broader in that it is not limited 

to call records. Although defendants argue Request 11 forces them to speculate as to which 

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 45 Filed 03/10/23 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

documents it addresses, the request can reasonably be construed as seeking documents reflecting 

Roderick’s use of interpretive services, as defendants themselves describe it, from any source. 

(See id. at 25.) Thus, the motion to compel is granted as to Request 11, limited to the time period 

April 7, 2015 to present.

C. Further Use of Interpretation Services Request (Request 21)

Request No. 21

All DOCUMENTS relating to COMMUNICATION by or from SHERIFF’S OFFICE patrol or 

field officers relating to interpretation or translation.

Ruling

Like Requests 19 and 20, plaintiffs state this request seeks records that show “how and 

when Sheriff’s Office field officers make use of interpretation services” as relevant to plaintiffs’ 

language access-based discrimination claims under Title VI and Section 11135. (ECF No. 42 at 

24.) Plaintiffs agreed to limit the scope to the time period April 7, 2015 to present. (Id.)

Defendants argue seeking office-wide communications “regarding interpretations or 

translations” is simply too broad or unintelligible, and not relevant to the claims. (Id. at 25.) The 

court finds the request somewhat vague as to the types of documents sought and plaintiffs do not 

explain what they seek that is not duplicative of other requests. On the other hand, defendants, 

rather than plaintiffs, may be in a better position to know the types of documents that show the 

information sought, or if there are none. The motion to compel is granted in that defendants shall 

reasonably construe Request 21 as seeking documents showing “how and when Sheriff’s Office 

field officers make use of interpretation services,” limited to the agreed-upon time period.

D. Charges for Interpretation Services (Request 22)

Request No. 22

All DOCUMENTS relating to the use of or charges for interpretation services by SHERIFF’S 

OFFICE patrol officers.

Ruling

Defendants produced the contracts for interpretation services as responsive to Request 22. 

(ECF No. 42 at 24.) Defendants argue it is unclear what, further, plaintiffs seek. (Id. at 25.)

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 45 Filed 03/10/23 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Plaintiffs do not elaborate on what, further, they seek, but state they never agreed to limit their 

request to simply contracts and that they have repeatedly agreed to more time for defendants to 

ascertain what documents exist.

The court is inclined to grant—at least in part—the motion to compel as to this request. 

However, the court is not satisfied that adequate meet and confer has occurred. The parties shall 

promptly meet and confer regarding the types of documents plaintiffs seek and whether plaintiffs 

will narrow or limit the scope of the request. Defendants shall make a good faith effort to 

ascertain what documents exist and shall produce responsive documents or a statement that no 

further responsive documents exist with explanation of the search undertaken.

E. Other Complaints (Request 23)

Request No. 23

All DOCUMENTS relating to [any] complaint or claim against the SHERIFF’S OFFICE based 

on lack of interpretation or involving an individual who was unable to communicate with the 

SHERIFF’S OFFICE due to limited English proficiency.

Ruling

Plaintiffs seek records that will show officers’ failures to provide interpretation during the 

period from April 7, 2015 to present. (ECF No. 42 at 27.) Plaintiffs state they assume these 

requested records are stored in computer files subject to electronic search. (Id. at 28.)

Defendants respond that the request is patently burdensome because it is directed to the 

entire sheriff’s office. (ECF No. 42 at 28.) Defendants also argue the complaints plaintiffs seek 

are not both electronically maintained and searchable in the manner that plaintiffs assume. (See

id.)

The court is inclined to grant in part the motion to compel as to this request. In assessing 

reasonableness, though, some courts have limited the time frame of similar requests to three to 

five years before the events at issue. See, e.g., Bates v. King County, No. C05-1348RSM, 2007 

WL 1059108, at * 3 (W.D. Wash. April 6, 2007) (limiting request for prior citizen complaints to a 

period of three years). Here, plaintiffs agreed to limit the request to the time period from April 7, 

2015 to present, which is a period of almost eight years. Plaintiffs present no legal or factual 

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 45 Filed 03/10/23 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

arguments for the temporal scope of the request in light of defendants’ claimed burden. On the 

other hand, defendants failed to submit any competent evidence to support their objection based 

on undue burden.

The court is not satisfied that adequate meet and confer has occurred as to this request. 

The parties shall promptly meet and confer and attempt to resolve the dispute. To the extent 

defendants continue to assert in good faith that searching for the requested documents is 

unreasonably burdensome, and to the extent plaintiffs do not agree to reduce the scope 

accordingly, the undersigned will be available for an informal telephonic conference. The parties 

are directed to the undersigned’s case management procedures for informal telephonic 

conferences on discovery disputes, available on the court’s website.

F. Request for Attorney Fees

If the motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, the court may, after giving an 

opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(5)(C). Plaintiffs’ request that defendants pay reasonable attorneys’ fees is denied without 

prejudice at this time. The court will entertain a renewed request if further meet and confer efforts

on the remaining disputes are unsuccessful.

IV. Order

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to compel previously set for March 15, 2023 is 

vacated.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted as to plaintiffs’ Request for Production of 

Documents, Set One, Requests 11, 12, 14, 15, 19 and 21; within twenty (20) days of 

the date of this order, defendants shall provide responsive documents or a statement 

that no further responsive documents exist with an explanation of the search made.

3. In all other respects the motion to compel is denied at this time but the parties shall 

promptly meet and confer further as to Requests 19 and 23; the parties are directed to 

the undersigned’s case management procedures for informal telephonic conferences 

on discovery disputes, available on the court’s website.

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 45 Filed 03/10/23 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

4. Plaintiffs’ request that defendants pay reasonable attorneys’ fees is denied without 

prejudice to a renewed request if meet and confer efforts are unsuccessful.

Dated: March 10, 2023

8.Doe.21cv1438.mtc

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 45 Filed 03/10/23 Page 9 of 9