Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01438-10/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 filed on November 8, 2023, and the parties’ joint statement 

on the discovery dispute (ECF Nos. 68, 69) are before the court. The parties appeared for a 

hearing via videoconference on November 29, 2023. Ezra Kautz and Chelsea Lalancette appeared 

for the plaintiffs; John Whitefleet appeared for defendants County of Sacramento, Sacramento 

Sheriff’s Office, and Darryl Roderick (“County defendants”).

I. Background

The plaintiffs in this action allege they were coerced into vacating their apartment without 

legal process by Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Darryl Roderick, who refused to provide 

interpretation. (ECF No. 69 at 6.)1 The second amended complaint asserts causes of action against 

the County defendants for wrongful eviction; deprivation of property without due process of law 

1 Referenced page numbers in the parties’ joint statement are those assigned by CM/ECF at the 

top of the page.

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 72 Filed 12/01/23 Page 1 of 5
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

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. (See generally, ECF No. 32.) On October 19, 2022, the court 

dismissed with prejudice municipal liability claims against the County and the Sheriff’s Office. 

(ECF No. 35.)

Through this motion, plaintiffs seek to compel the County defendants to produce 

documents and provide further interrogatory responses. Defendants’ responses to the following 

discovery requests are at issue: Request for Production of Documents, Request Nos. 20, 32 & 33;

Interrogatory Nos. 3 & 4. (ECF No. 69.) Plaintiffs also ask the court to impose sanctions in the 

form of reasonable attorney fees. (Id.)

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).

When a party fails to provide discovery and 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 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)).

////

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 72 Filed 12/01/23 Page 2 of 5
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

III. Discussion

A. Search Results for Calls by Field Officers Involving LEP Person

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.”

This request was the subject of a prior motion to compel which resulted in a court order 

for the parties to meet and confer further and for defendants to provide responsive documents 

relating to calls for service involving members of the public who have limited English proficiency 

(“LEP”). (See ECF No. 45 at 4-5, 8.) Following further meet and confer, the County defendants 

eventually produced computer-aided dispatch (“CAD”) search results for the years 2015-2023 in 

electronic format. The records produced include the notes from the entry that triggered the search 

term result, but not all notes and remarks for each matching CAD record. (See ECF No. 69 at 3-6, 

9, 11-12.)

Defendants argue the burden is not reasonably proportional to the needs of the case 

because their understanding is that it would require locating and pulling each CAD report 

separately for more than 50,000 entries. However, plaintiffs offered to engage an expert 

technician if necessary to extract the data.

As plaintiffs argue, the court already ruled the CAD records are discoverable, and the 

court already ordered their production. The prior order to provide responsive documents relating 

to calls for service involving LEP persons encompasses the full notes for each CAD report as 

opposed to only the notes from the entry that triggered the search term result. In addition, the 

parties have entered into a protective order to address defendants’ privacy concerns, and plaintiffs 

indicate the expert technician can sign whatever protective order is necessary.

The motion to compel is granted as to Request No. 20. Defendants shall either provide the 

responsive CAD records with full notes/remarks to plaintiffs in electronic form or shall make the 

database available to plaintiff’s expert technician to extract the full CAD records pertaining to the 

relevant entries.

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 72 Filed 12/01/23 Page 3 of 5
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

B. Records Showing Federal and State Funding to Sheriff’s Office

Interrogatory No. 3

List all grants, awards, financial support, or other instances of 

funding from the U.S. federal government covering the activities of 

the SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and for each, state source agency, 

activities covered, and the time period of activities covered.

Interrogatory No. 4

List all grants, awards, financial support, or other instances of 

funding from the State of California, or any state agency, covering 

the activities of the SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and for each, state source 

agency, activities covered, and the time period of activities covered.

Request No. 32

All DOCUMENTS relating to funding or financial agreements 

between DEFENDANTS and any federal agency, where such 

funding or agreements relates to the SHERIFF’S OFFICE, including 

but not limited to all assurances of compliance with civil rights 

requirements. 

Request No. 33

All DOCUMENTS relating to funding or financial agreements 

between DEFENDANTS, on the one part, and the State of California 

or any state agency, on the other, where such funding or agreements 

relates to the SHERIFF’S OFFICE.

Plaintiffs argue that this category of discovery is relevant to federal and state funding 

directed towards operations of the Sheriff’s Office, which are elements of their claims under Title 

VI and Cal. Gov. Code § 11135, respectively. (ECF No. 69 at 18.) Plaintiffs argue they anticipate 

defendants will attempt to negate these elements by arguing a lack of state or federal funding 

specifically directed to language access. (Id. at 19.) Defendants argue the requests are not limited 

to type of grant, name, or year, and thus are not sufficiently relevant or reasonably proportional to 

the needs of the case. (Id. at 21.) Defendants argue that establishing the mere fact of federal 

funding as of the date of the incident on April 7, 2020, through a simple request for admission, 

should suffice. (Id.)

Interrogatory No. 3 and Interrogatory No. 4 seek relevant information and defendants

have not put forth a persuasive argument why they cannot respond, limited to an appropriate time 

period. The motion to compel is granted in part as to Interrogatory No. 3 and Interrogatory No. 4,

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 72 Filed 12/01/23 Page 4 of 5
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

with the applicable time period limited to the years 2015-2023.

The motion to compel is also granted in part as to Request No. 32 and Request No. 33, 

with the applicable time period limited to the years 2015-2023. Concurrently, the parties are 

ordered to meet and confer further. Plaintiffs have indicated they are willing to narrow the 

requests and plaintiffs are encouraged to do so. Within 7 days, the parties shall meet and confer

regarding what plaintiffs need to attempt in good faith to narrow the requests. Defendant shall 

either provide responsive documents to Request No. 32 and Request No. 33, for the years 2015-

2023, or as narrowed further following additional meet and confer. In the alternative, the parties 

are encouraged to negotiate an appropriate stipulation or admission that would eliminate 

plaintiffs’ need for the requested documents and/or interrogatory responses.

IV. Conclusion and Order

The court reserves ruling on plaintiffs’ request for sanctions in the November 8, 2023, 

motion until the conclusion of the further briefing schedule set forth in the minutes for the motion 

hearing held on November 29, 2023. (See ECF No. 71.)

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 68) is granted.

2. As to Request No. 20, defendants shall either provide the responsive CAD records in 

electronic form with all notes and remarks or shall make the database available to 

plaintiff’s expert technician to extract the full records pertaining to the relevant entries.

3. Defendants shall respond further to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory Nos. 3 & 4 within thirty

(30) days of the date of this order.

4. Within seven (7) days, the parties shall meet and confer further regarding Request No. 

32 and Request No. 33.

Dated: December 1, 2023

8.Doe.21cv1438.mtc2

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01438-DC-CKD Document 72 Filed 12/01/23 Page 5 of 5