Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07476/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07476-8/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD RANDOLPH, SR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-07476 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

On November 20, 2007, the Court issued an order compelling defendants to produce documents

related to excessive force claims brought against defendant officers, as well as documents in the

officers’ personnel files related to their training. Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s letter brief

requesting that the Court compel defendants to comply with that order and compel defendants to

produce additional documents not previously sought by plaintiff. The Court will address each issue in

turn. 

Plaintiff first complains that defendants produced a box of documents to plaintiff without proof

of service and verifications and without placing them “as they are kept in the usual course of business”

or “organize[d] and label[ed] to correspond with the categories in the request.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

34(b)(2)(E)(i). Defendants do not dispute that the documents were improperly organized, and instead

focus entirely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which deals with disclosures and objections, not

the actual production of evidence. The requirements of Rule 34 are mandatory. Therefore, the Court

orders defendants to comply with Rule 34 by organizing the documents in a proper manner. The Court

is unaware, however, of any rule requiring a party to affix serial numbers, seals, or any other proof of

authenticity to evidence produced to an opposing party, and plaintiff has not cited any such rule.

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 89 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff will have to authenticate such documents at trial as he would any evidence.

Next, plaintiff seems to argue that defendants have failed to produce documents relating to the

investigation into the incident at issue in this case and any disciplinary actions taken against defendants

Frayer and Fong. Defendants assert that no such documents exist. The Court finds that any documents

relating to disciplinary actions taken against these officers, as well as any documents touching upon

reasons why these officers may have left the East Palo Alto Police Department, may be relevant and

must be produced to plaintiff within one week of the date of this order.

Plaintiff also requests production of documents relating to defendant Frayer’s attitude towards

the public. Plaintiff did not previously seek discovery of such documents; accordingly, the Court in its

November 20, 2007 Order noted that these documents did not need to be produced. The Court also

noted that such documents are not likely to lead to relevant and admissible evidence, but the Court now

revisits that decision and agrees with plaintiff that complaints about defendant Frayer’s attitude toward

the public could be relevant to plaintiff’s lawsuit. Defendants object that such information would be

inadmissible at trial, but the admissibility of these documents is not at issue in this stage of the

proceedings. See Fed. R. Civ P. 26(b). Defendants are ordered to produce these documents within one

week of the date of this order.

Finally, plaintiff moves for sanctions against defendants in connection with these discovery

matters. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions are DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown, plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART [Docket No. 77].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 89 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 89 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 3