Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-FILED 7/25/05*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH PADGETT AND DARLA

PADGETT,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF MONTE SERENO, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. 5:04-cv-3946 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO

COMPEL PALM PRINTS

AND FINGER PRINTS

I. INTRODUCTION

PlaintiffsJosephPadgett and Darla Padgett ("Padgetts"),formerresidents ofthe CityofMonte Sereno

(the "City"), initiated this suit claiming, among other things, violation of their civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Specifically, the Padgetts allege that they were singled out for discriminatorytreatment inthe process

of seeking a building permit for their home, and thatCityofficialssent thema threatening letter demanding that

they leave town. 

The Padgetts nowseek to compelCityofficialsto submit fingerprints and palmprints, pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 35, arguing that such evidence is necessary in order to identify the author of the threatening letter,

and to determine whether City officials had knowledge or involvement init. The motion was fully briefed and

heard by the Court on July 13, 2005. Based on all papers filed to date, as well as on the oral argument of

counsel, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion, for the reasons set forth below.

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 10
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

II. BACKGROUND

In 1992, Mrs. Padgett purchased property located at 17965 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road in Monte

Sereno. In February 1999, the Padgetts applied for a Site Development Permit so that theycould build their

"dreamhome" on the property. (Amended Complaint at p. 3, line 9.) OnMarch3, 1999, the Cityapproved

the Padgetts' Site Development Permit and the Padgetts proceeded with construction.

Once constructioncommenced, thePadgetts'neighborsbegantoobject to the changesto the Padgetts'

property. The Padgetts allege that City Manager, defendant Brian Loventhal ("Loventhal"), sided against them

and entered into a common plan to "persecute and harass" them into conceding to their neighbors' demands.

During construction, a dispute also developed between the City and the Padgetts concerning a newly

constructed fence. The City was unwilling to grant a variance, and insisted on enforcing an ordinance

prohibiting fences over six feet tall. (Id. at p. 8, line 12.) The Padgetts refused to comply with the ordinance,

and the City filed a nuisance actionand a criminal suit against the Padgetts, obtaining criminal search warrants

to enter the Padgetts' property. (Id. at p. 14, lines 1-9.)

In January 2004, A. Curtis Wright, a City Council member, visited the house of Ron Schindler and

allegedly warned Mr. Schindler about Mr. Padgett,suggesting he searchthe Internetforinformationabout Mr.

Padgett. (Schindler Decl., p. 3, line 1.) Several months later, after subsequent communication with Mr.

Wright, Mr. Schindler allegedly received a copyof a newspaper article about Mr. Padgett dated February 3,

1994 in his mailbox. (Id. at line 20; see Exh. C.) 

In March 2004, the Padgetts attended a City Council meeting to complain that defendant Loventhal

was singling them out for discriminatory treatment. (Id. at line 18.) A few days after the meeting, on March

19, 2004, the Padgettsreceived a threatening letter demanding that they leave town or else Mr. Padgett'stenyear old misdemeanor conviction would be exposed. (Padgett Decl., Exh. B.) An article from the San Jose

MercuryNews discussing that convictiondated February3, 1994 wasincluded withthe letter, the same article

allegedly placed in Ron Schindler's mailbox. (See id.; see Schindler Decl., Exh. C.) 

Mr. Padgett reported receiving the threatening letter to the Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police

Department. (Padgett Decl., p. 4, line 6.) The letter and envelope were then submitted to the County of Santa

Clara Crime Laboratory and the San Jose Police Department Central Identification Unit for analysis. The

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 10
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

1Brian Loventhal is the City Manager. A. Curtis Wright, Erin Brodsky, Barbara Nesbet and David Baxter are

members of the City Council. Howard Bell is the City's Building Official. Rosemary Carrera is the City's Postal Clerk. Andrea

Chelemengos is the City Clerk and Assistant City Planner. Eileen Finn-Kopp is an administrative clerk. Sue L'Heureux is the

City's Finance Officer/Deputy City Clerk. Lisa Rice was, until recently, an administrative clerk. Gordon Siebert and Michelle

Wu are contract engineers for the City. (Loventhal Decl., p. 3, line 23.)

3

County Crime Lab processed the letter and envelope and prepared a compact disc with 47 images lifted from

the documents. (Reedy Decl., Exh. A, p. 2.) Based on the report from the Central Identification Unit, the Los

Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department announced that the analysis did not match Mr. Loventhal's prints.

(Reedy Supp. Decl., Exh. C, p. 2.) 

Unconvinced bythe police report, the Padgettssubmitted the letter alongwiththe CD fromthe County

Crime Lab to a private laboratory, Forensics Analytical. (Kaminski Decl., p. 2, lines 15-19.) They also

submitted a water bottle that allegedly was used by Mr. Loventhal as well as a set of original letters and

envelopes from him, including a letter dated January 30, 2004. (Id. at p. 2; see Padgett Decl., Exh. C.)

Forensic Analyticalconcluded that the printsfound on the threatening letter matched a print found onthe letter

from Loventhal, but the Padgetts were eliminated as a source of the prints. (Kaminski Decl., Exh. B, p. 3.)

Despite repeated requests by the Padgetts, defendants refused to provide finger or palm prints voluntarily.

(ReedyDecl., Exh. G, H.) Forensic Analytical was not able to find a matchbetweenthe threatening letter and

the water bottle allegedly used by Mr. Loventhal. (Kaminski Decl., Exh. B, p. 3.)

In addition to seeking forensic evidence, the Padgetts also attempted to determine the source of the

Padgett article. Discovering the archives for the San Jose Mercury News were controlled by News Bank, Inc.,

the Padgetts were able to determine that Mr. Loventhal had downloaded the Padgett article twice in 2003.

(Padgett Decl., Exh. F.) In its September 5, 2004 edition, the San Jose Mercury News reported that Mr.

Loventhal admitted to passing copies of the Padgett article to City Council members. (Reedy Decl., Exh. J,

p. 2.)

The Padgetts contend that defendants Brian Loventhal, A. Curtis Wright, Erin Brodsky, Barbara

Nesbet and David Baxter, as well as non-parties Howard Bell,RosemaryCarrera, AndreaChelemengos, Lisa

Rice, Eileen Finn-Kopp, Sue L'Heureux, Gordon Siebert, and Michelle Wu should be compelled to provide

fingerprints because their request meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 35.1 The Padgetts contend that

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/25/05 Page 3 of 10
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

the threatening letter's authorship is a central matter "in controversy" and that "good cause" exists to compel

defendantsto provide their fingerprints. In response, defendants contend that a recent admission by non-party

Lisa Rice that she authored and sent the letter with the accompanying article precludes the Padgetts from

meeting the "in controversy" and "good cause" requirements of Rule 35. In addition, defendants contend that

the Court may not compel non-parties to submit to physical examinations under Rule 35.

III. STANDARDS

Discovery requests for physical or mental examinations are governed byRule 35 ofthe Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. The Rule in relevant part states that,

whenthe mentalor physical condition (including the blood group) ofa partyor a personinthe

custodyor underthe legalcontrolof a party, is in controversy, the court may. . . order a party

to submit to a physical or mental examination bya suitably licenced or certified examiner or to

produce for examination the person in the party's custodyor legalcontrol. The order may be

made only on motion for good cause shown.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a).

Rule 35 requires the trial judge to analyze with particularity whether the moving party has adequately

met the Rule's requirements of "in controversy" and "good cause.'' Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104,

118-119 (1964). Discovery requests for documents and tangible things are governed by Rule 34 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule in relevant part states that, 

Any party may serve onany other partya request (1) to produce and permit the party making

the request, or someone acting onthe requestor's behalf, to inspect and copy, any designated

documents(includingwritings,drawings,graphs,charts,photographs,phonorecords,and other

data compilations from which information can be obtained, translated, if necessary, by the

respondent through detection devices into reasonably usable form), or to inspect and copy,

test, orsample any tangible things which constitute or containmatters within the scope ofRule

26(b) and whichare inthe possession, custodyor controlofthe party upon whom the request

is served.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). 

Further, Rule 34(c) provides that a court may compel "a person not a party to the action . . . to produce

documents and things or to submit to an inspection as provided in Rule 45." 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Named Defendants Are to Submit Fingerprints and Palm Prints Pursuant to Rule 35

1. Defendants' Fingerprints Are "In Controversy"

Rule 35(a) requiresthat the "mentalor physicalconditionof a partyor a personinthe custodyor under

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/25/05 Page 4 of 10
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

the legal control of a party . . . [be] in controversy . . . [before] the court may . . . order a party to submit to

a physicalor mentalexamination." Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a). The "in controversy" requirement stipulates that the

examination must be closely related to the specific incident or litigation. See Robinson v. Jacksonville

Shipyards, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 525, 531 (M.D. Fla. 1988).

As plaintiffs have analyzed the threatening letter for fingerprints and palm prints, all that remains is to

compare those with defendants' fingerprints and palm prints. Without additional fingerprints and palm prints,

authorship of the letter may not be conclusively determined. That issue directly relates to at least one of the

Padgetts' claims for relief. Hence, the "in controversy" requirement is met in this instance.

That conclusion corresponds to the decision in Harris v. Athol-Royalston Regional School District

Committee, 206 F.R.D. 31, 33 (D. Mass. 2002). In Harris, plaintiff alleged that his employers had delivered

ananonymous packet ofsensitive documentsto a columnist of the local newspaper. Id. at 31. Attempting to

link his employer and several coworkers with the delivery, plaintiff sought to compel defendants to produce

fingerprints. Id. at 32. In partially granting the motion, the court in Harris found that the request forfingerprints

adequately satisfied the "in controversy" requirement because the discovery sought was directly linked to the

claim for relief. See id. at 33.

Although defendants contend that the admission by LisaRice rendersthe authorship ofthe threatening

letternolonger a matter "incontroversy,"her alleged statements do not end the inquiry, and the Padgettsshould

be entitled to explore the origin and handling of the lattermore fully in discovery. After all, the Padgetts have

advanced evidencethatlinksthe threateningletterto Mr. Loventhaland members ofthe CityCouncil, indicating

the existence of a material issue of fact concerning authorship of the threatening letter despite the statements

ascribed to Ms. Rice. For these reasons, the Court finds that defendants' fingerprints and palm prints remain

"in controversy" within the meaning of Rule 35. 

2. "Good Cause" Exists To Compel Discovery From Defendants

Rule 35 requires that the moving party show "good cause" for their request for physical examination.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a). The explicit requirement of "good cause" indicates that a greater showing of need is

required beyond mere relevancy. "The specific requirement of good cause would be meaningless if good cause

could be sufficiently established by merely showing that the desired materials are relevant, for the relevancy

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/25/05 Page 5 of 10
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

standard has already been imposed by Rule 26(b)." Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 118 (quoting Guilford Nat.

Bank of Greensboro v. Southern Ry. Co., 297 F.2d 921, 924 (4th Cir. 1962)). This burden is not met by

"mere conclusoryallegations ofthe pleadings - nor bymere relevance to the case - but require[s] anaffirmative

showing by the movant that . . . good cause exists for ordering each particular examination." Id.

Withrespect to defendant Loventhal, the Padgetts have satisfied their burdenofshowing "good cause"

to request the productionoffingerprints and palmprints. Based on the analysis by Forensic Analytical, it is "at

least plausible"that whoever wrote the threatening letter mayhave beenthe same personwho signed the earlier

letterfromdefendant Loventhalsubmitted to forensic experts. Harris, at 206 F.R.D. at 33. The Padgetts have

also provided further evidence that the Padgett article originated as a download from defendant Loventhal's

computer. See Padgett Decl., Exh. F. Additionally, the Padgetts have argued that they cannot definitively

determine the identity of the author of the threatening letter without fingerprint information. The inability of the

movant to obtain the desired information by other means is also relevant to a showing of good cause. See

Schlagenhauf, 379 U.S. at 114.

With respect to the fingerprint requests for the remaining defendants, the Padgetts have similarly

satisfied their burden of showing "good cause," by providing evidence that members of the City Council

received copies of the newspaper article from Loventhal. See Reedy Decl., Exh. J, p. 2. In addition, the

Padgetts have provided evidence that members of the City Council were openly hostile towards them, and

were willingto share the article about Mr. Padgetts' conviction in order to hurt his reputation. Schindler Decl.,

p. 3, line 20. In light of the Padgetts' evidence, it is "at least plausible"that the author of threatening letter may

have been a member of the City Council. Hence, although the Padgetts' showing of good cause may not be

asstrong forthe CityCouncil members as it is for defendant Loventhal, the Padgetts have made a reasonable

showing consistent with the standard set forth in Schlagenhauf. 379 U.S. at 118. Therefore, the Padgetts'

motion to compel is granted with respect to the named defendants. 

B. Non-Parties Will Not Be Compelled To Submit Fingerprints And Palm Prints

1. Non-Parties May Be Compelled To Submit Fingerprints Under Rule 34

Traditionally underRule 35, physicalexaminations mayonly be requested of parties to the litigationor

persons in the parties' "custody or legal control." Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a). That language was drafted to extend

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/25/05 Page 6 of 10
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

2The Padgetts contend that the City, as an employer, has "legal control" over the non-party City officials. With

respect to Lisa Rice, however, her employment with the City has been terminated since the submission of her alleged

admission. Hence, even if the Padgetts' interpretation of Rule 35 was correct, Ms. Rice's fingerprints would still be

unavailable since she is no longer a city employee.

7

Rule 35 to minorswhose guardians are partiesto anaction. See Committee Notes onAmendmentsto Federal

Rules ofCivilProcedure (1970); Lewis v. Herrman's Excavating, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 657, 661 (D. Kan. 2001).

The Committee Notes also make it clear that "custody or legal control" was not intended to encompass

employees of a corporation or governmental entity who may be partyto anaction. ("[t]he amendment makes

no reference to employees of a party. Provisions relating to employees in the State statutes and rules . . .

appear to have been virtually unused." Id.) Subsequent proposals to expand the scope ofRule 35 to include

employees ofcorporations have thusfar beenrejected. Lewis, 200 F.R.D. at 661 (citations omitted). Hence,

Rule 35 provides no authorityto compel any ofthe non-partiesinthis actionto submit to physicalexaminations

under Rule 35, regardless of their employment status with the City.2

While Rule 35 is therefore not available to compelnon-partiesinthisinstance, the Padgetts argue that

Rule 34 provides an alternative basis for such a motion. In U.S. v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707, 711 (1980), the

Supreme Court held that "the duty to appear and give testimony . . . has traditionally encompassed a duty to

provide some forms of non-testimonial, physical evidence." Id. at 711; Holt v. U.S., 218 U.S. 245, 252

(1910). "Traditionally witnesses could be compelled . . . to submit to 'fingerprinting, photographing, or

measurements, to write or speak for identification, to appear in court, to stand, to assume a stance, to walk,

or to make a particular gesture.'" Id. at 713 (quoting Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764 (1966))

In Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 266 (1967), the Court held that handwriting was "like the body itself"

to be an "identifying physical characteristic," subject to production. See U.S. v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 93

(1973) (confirmed that handwriting is in the nature of physical evidence which can be compelled by a grand

jury).

When faced with similar facts to this case, the court in Harris applied the reasoning in Euge and

concluded that fingerprints were also an "identifying physical characteristic" and fell within the scope of Rule

34. The court in Harris relied heavily on Alford v. Northeast Insurance Co., Inc., 102 F.R.D. 99, 101 (N.D.

Fla. 1984), which stated that "the taking and furnishing of fingerprints is a matter within the contemplation of

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/25/05 Page 7 of 10
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

3The Padgetts also contend that the Court may use its inherent power to compel non-parties to submit to physical

examinations. The Padgetts contend Dinsel v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 144 F. Supp. 880, 882 (W.D. Pa. 1956) provides

precedent for the Court to compel a non-party employee to a physical examination. However, the Court does not find Dinsel

persuasive. Dinsel was decided prior to the 1970 amendments, when the language "legal custody and control" was added

to Rule 35(a). As explained above, the 1970 Advisory Committee Notes make it clear that employees of a defendant

corporation were not within the contemplation of the drafters of the 1970 amendment. Hence, the Court believes that the

1970 amendments were written to prevent future decisions like Dinsel, and thus, it is not instructive in this case.

8

Rule 34." Like the Alford court, Harris concluded that fingerprints are physical characteristics, essentially like

a "blood group"and, therefore, could be subject to production. 206 F.R.D. at 33 (citing Alford, 102 F.R.D.

at 101). 

The language of Rules 26 and 34 is sufficiently broad to encompass the obligation to provide

fingerprints and palm prints. As with requests for handwriting exemplars under Rule 34, requests for

fingerprints ask for "identifying physical characteristics" that may be useful as a form of "noncommunicative

evidence." Alford, 102 F.R.D. at 101. While Rule 34 is accordingly available as a discovery mechanism to

compel the production of fingerprints, the standard a moving party must meet by necessity mirrors the "good

cause" requirement in Rule 35. To hold otherwise would produce the anamalous result of a lesser showing

being required to compel non-party fingerprints than those of a party. Rule 35's "good cause" requirement,

therefore, applies withrespect to the Padgetts' motiontocompeldiscoveryfromnon-parties.3 See Harris, 206

F.R.D. at 33. 

3. WithThe ExceptionOfLisaRice, "GoodCause"Does Not ExistTo CompelDiscoveryFrom

Any Non-Parties

The Padgetts' showing of good cause rests primarily on the deposition of Ms. Chelemengos, who

admitted that Mr. Loventhal had shown her the Padgett article. However, the Court notes that while Ms.

Chelemengos did admit that she saw the Padgett article, she also stated that she directly handed the Padgett

article back to Mr. Loventhal after reading it. See Reedy Decl., p. 137. Unlike the City Council members,

Ms. Chelemengos never received her own copyofthe Padgett article. Id. at Exh.J, p. 2. Moreover, beyond

Ms. Chelemengos' deposition, the Padgetts submit only unsupported allegations with their request that nonparties be required to provide fingerprints and palmprints. Thus, absent more convincing evidence, the Court

does not find that the Padgetts at this juncture have made a reasonable showing of "good cause"withrespect

to the non-party City officials, with the exception of Ms. Rice.

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/25/05 Page 8 of 10
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

In light of Lisa Rice's admissions regarding the letter at issue,"good cause" exists to compel her to

produce fingerprints and palm prints. Under Rule 34(c), a party must proceed by way of a Rule 45 subpoena

to obtain evidence from a non-party. Since there is no record that the Padgetts served a Rule 45 subpoena

on Ms. Rice, their request to compel fingerprints and palm prints from Ms. Rice is premature. Accordingly,

the motion is denied without prejudice as to Ms. Rice.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Padgetts' motion to compel

fingerprintsand palmprints. The Court grants the motion with respect to defendants Brian Loventhal, A. Curtis

Wright, Erin Brodsky, Barbara Nesbet and David Baxter and denies the motion with respect to non-parties

Howard Bell, Rosemary Carrera, AndreaChelemengos, EileenFinn-Kopp, Sue L'Heureux, Gordon Siebert,

and Michelle Wu. With respect to Lisa Rice, the motion is denied as premature in that no Rule 45 subpoena

has been served.

The fingerprints and palm prints shall be administered by Laurie Kaminski of Forensics Analytical at

the Monte Sereno City Hall within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Subsequently, the Padgetts are

to provide defendants with the records of the original prints taken at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2005 /s/ Richard Seeborg 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/25/05 Page 9 of 10
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Joseph C. Howard , Jr jhoward@hrmrlaw.com, tmaster@hrmrlaw.com;dlongstaff@hrmrlaw.com 

James McManis jmcmanis@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com 

Michael Reedy mreedy@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com 

Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria jvalenzuelasantamaria@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com 

Dated: July 25, 2005 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/25/05 Page 10 of 10