Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01450/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01450-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 08‐CV‐1450‐WQH(WVG)    

UNITED STATES DISTRICT Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL BASHKIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, HOWARD KLUGE, BRET

GARRETT, & DOES 1‐100,

Defendants.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08‐cv‐1450‐WQH(WVG)

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE

INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOCUMENTS TO

PLAINTIFF

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff has requested for the Internal Affairs (IA) file in connection with the current

lawsuit and Defendants Kluge’s and Garrett’s personnel file recordsthat contain citizen complaints

alleging excessive force orfalse testimony. Plaintiff’srequestisGRANTEDin part andDENIEDin part.

Following in camera review of all possibly responsive documents, the Court finds IA # 2007‐016.1

(Bates stamp number 08‐cv‐1450 000001 ‐ 000108) relating to the action from which the instant

lawsuit arose to be relevant and not privileged, and ORDERS the documents to be produced to

Plaintiff. All personal identifying information otherthan namesshall be redacted. Plaintiff’srequest

for personnel records of Defendants Kluge and Garrett is DENIED as an in camera review of the

documents(Batesstamp number 08‐cv‐1450 000109 ‐ 000329) demonstratesthat they contain no

relevant information to the subject matter or claims in the instant lawsuit.

Case 3:08-cv-01450-AJB-WVG Document 62 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 3
   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 08‐CV‐1450‐WQH(WVG)    

II. DISCUSSION

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery regarding any

matter that is  “not privileged” and “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.”

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).  Furthermore, “[t]he information sought need not be admissible at the

trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence.”  Id.  A relevantmatteris “anymatterthat bears on, orthatreasonably could lead to other

matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.”  Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.

Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).  Because discovery is designed to define and clarify the issues, it

is not limited to only those specific issues raised in the pleadings.  Id.

The IA documents concerning the incident from which this lawsuit arises are clearly

relevant and within the scope of discovery. These documents reflect Plaintiff’s complaint of

excessive force, the names of the deputies involved, witnesses identified, as well as findings and

conclusions about the event. Defendants assert only privacy protections for personal information

within the documents. The Court finds that redaction of all individual identifying information

protects all privacy interests.

Regarding the personnel files of Defendants Kluge and Garret, there are no relevant

documents nor are there any documents that could lead to relevant information.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court finds IA # 2007‐016.1 (Bates stamp number 08‐cv‐1450 000001  ‐ 000108)

relating to the action from which the instant lawsuit arose to be relevant, not privileged, and

ORDERS the report and attached documents to be produced to Plaintiff.  All personal identifying

information other than names shall be redacted. Plaintiff’s request for Defendants Kluge’s and

Garrett’s personnel records and citizen complaints is DENIED as these documents are not relevant

to any of Plaintiff’s requests or any claims in the instant lawsuit. (Bates stamp 08‐cv‐1450 000109‐

000329.)

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-01450-AJB-WVG Document 62 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 3
   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 08‐CV‐1450‐WQH(WVG)    

The Court will return the copies submitted for in camera review to Defendants for

redaction of the documents that shall be produced to the Plaintiff. Counsel for Defendants must

produce the redacted documents to Plaintiff no later than August 9, 2010.    

DATED:  July 30, 2010

    Hon. William V. Gallo

    U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01450-AJB-WVG Document 62 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 3