Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00684-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEIGH MEGARGEE, et al.,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0684 LJO WMW P 

vs. ORDER RE MOTION (DOC 56)

BILL WITTMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

This action arises out of the shooting of Plaintiffs Stanleigh

Megargee and Katie Taylor by Defendant Tulare County Sheriff’s

Deputies Dan Baker and Chad Rhyman on June 5, 2005. Pending before

the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production and Inspection of

personnel files of Officers Dan Baker and Chad Rhyman.

This action involves an officer involved shooting in Visalia,

California on June 5, 2005 following a residential burglary and police

pursuit. After committing the burglary, Plaintiffs attempted to flee the

scene in a stolen pickup truck, leading Tulare County Sheriff Officers

Chad Rhyman and Dan Baker on a high speed chase. Plaintiffs

eventually turned into Prospect Avenue, which is a dead end street. They

then made a u-turn in the front yard of a residence. Officer Rhyman and

Case 1:06-cv-00684-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 6
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

2

Officer Baker feared for their lives and opened fire in self-defense.

The contested facts are whether the police officers actually feared

for their lives based on eyewitness accounts and the physical and

forensic evidence. The other factual dispute is whether the officers used

excessive force given the totality of circumstances and whether the final

gunshot to Mr. Megargee's head constituted malice on the part of the

shooting officer. Other contested facts will be whether Mr. Megargee was

unconscious at the time he was shot in the side of the head at close range. 

 Also, there is an issue whether Tulare County negligently trained and

supervised the officers involved in the shooting.

Plaintiff’s initially sought three categories of documents: The

personnel files of Deputies Baker and Rhyman; Files reflecting the

training of Baker and Rhyman; County of Tulare policies,

procedures/manuals in effect in June 2005 as they relate to the Sheriff

Wittman’s procedures and practices. On August 1, 2007, a stipulation and

protective order was entered, resolving the issues of the policy and

procedure manuals. 

As to the production of the personnel files, Plaintiffs’ request

follows: Request For Production No. 6: Please produce the personnel files

for Dan Baker and Chad Rhyman. Defendants’ objection: This request is

invasive of the individual Defendants’ right to privacy. The requested

information would require the disclosure of peace officer personnel

records and is therefore protected from disclosure pursuant to Penal

Code § 832.7 and § 832.8.

Case 1:06-cv-00684-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 6
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

3

Defendants oppose the disclosure of irrelevant portions of the

police officer personnel records. Because of the privacy concerns,

Defendants request an in camera review of the personnel files prior to

disclosure of any relevant information. Defendants’ concern is that these

personnel files contain some private information that is completely

irrelevant to this action. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure provide the following:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any

matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the

claim or defense of any party, including the

existence, description, nature, custody, condition,

and location of any books, documents, or other

tangible things and the identity and location of

persons having knowledge of any discoverable

matter. . . . The information sought need not be

admissible at trial of the information sought

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.

In federal question cases, privileges asserted in response to

discovery requests are determined under federal law, not the law of the

forum state. Fed. R. Evid. 501; United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562

(1989); Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of

California, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975). Federal common law

recognizes a qualified privilege for official information, also known as the

governmental privilege, or state secret privilege. Kerr v. United States

District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d

192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975). The application of the official information

Case 1:06-cv-00684-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 6
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

4

privilege is “contingent upon the competing interests of the requesting

litigant and subject to disclosure especially where protective measures

are taken.” Id.

Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right

of privacy that can be raised in response to discovery requests. See Breed

v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern district, 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th

Cir.1976) (balancing the invasion of minor's privacy rights against the

court's need for ward files); Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d

1487, 1497 (10th Cir.1992), cert. den. 507 U.S. 910, 113 S.Ct. 1255, 122 L.Ed.2d

654 (1993) (denying discovery of names of participants in a medical study

due to privacy interests of the individual participants); Cook v. Yellow

Freight Sys., Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 550-51 (E.D.Cal.1990)(balancing targeted

individual's right of privacy against public's need for discovery in

employment discrimination case).

Complaints and investigations relating to excessive force are

relevant and discoverable. Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227,

229 (S.D. Cal. 1993). Here, Defendants do not oppose the disclosure of

relevant portions of the personnel files. Defendants request the Court to

conduct an in camera review of the personnel files in order to maintain

the privacy of Officer Baker and Officer Rhyman, and to determine which

portions of the personnel records are relevant.

The Court finds the request for personnel files to be overbroad. The

Court declines to review the entire personnel files of Deputies Baker and

Rhyman at this point. Plaintiffs shall narrow their request to portions of

the personnel files, that, by their description, are relevant. The conduct

Case 1:06-cv-00684-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 08/27/07 Page 4 of 6
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

 Any request that seeks conclusions and recommendations regarding 1

any investigations should be limited to the facts presented rather than

another’s opinion of the events in question. A jury should decide questions

of witness credibility and fact interpretation.

5

at issue in this lawsuit concerns allegations of excessive force by

Deputies Baker and Rhyman. Information relating to allegations of

conduct involving excessive force is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and is

therefore discoverable. As to Defendants’ privacy concerns, such

concerns should be addressed by a stipulated protective order. 

1

Plaintiff’s Request For Production No. 2 is a request for “all training

files for Dan Baker and Chad Rhyman.” Defendants object on privacy

grounds. The Court finds this request to be overbroad as well. Plaintiffs

should narrow their request to any training that addresses the specific

conduct in this lawsuit. A significant factual dispute exists as to the

conduct of Defendants immediately after the pursuit. As with the

personnel records, any privacy issues should be addressed by a stipulated

protective order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for

an order compelling the disclosure of personnel files and training records

is denied as overbroad. Plaintiffs are entitled to the relevant portions of

the personnel files and training records, subject to a protective order. 

Case 1:06-cv-00684-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 08/27/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00684-LJO-GSA Document 68 Filed 08/27/07 Page 6 of 6