Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01150/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01150-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On June 10, 2012, the Court held an informal telephone conference regarding a discovery 

dispute that was underway. (Doc. 26) As a result of the conference, many of the issues were 

resolved or clarified as follows:

1. Requests No. 2, 3, 22 and 43 had been fully addressed by Defendants though 

Defendants should amend their responses, as necessary, to indicate all documents have been 

provided or no responsive documents exist.

2. As to Request No. 7, Defendants have provided all information related to any bites 

by K-9 Bronx. Plaintiff may file a motion to compel information related to all bites by all K-9s 

owned by the BPD for the past 10 years but the Court strongly encourages her to reconsider this 

request. The summary of the request seems to indicate that it is significantly overbroad in terms of 

scope and time and is not likely to seek relevant information, as currently worded.

VICTORIA YOUNGBLOOD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01150 AWI JLT

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Case 1:12-cv-01150-JLT Document 27 Filed 06/12/13 Page 1 of 4
2

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. Defendants have provided the deployment log for K-9 Bronx in response to Request 

No. 24. They have not done so as to the other K-9s. However, the log for Bronx does not provide 

any information about the circumstances of the deployments such that Plaintiff can determine 

whether there is evidence of an unlawful custom related to the dog’s deployment. Thus, Plaintiff 

seeks the narrative report from Officer Dalton related to each of these approximate 600 

deployments. Defendants argue that production of these reports would be overly burdensome and 

they are irrelevant. 

Once again Plaintiff may file a motion to compel information related to all deployments of 

Bronx and the other K-9s but the Court strongly encourages her to consider propounding a request 

which is better tailored to the relevant circumstances of this case. The summary of the request 

here as currently worded, seems to indicate that the request is significantly overbroad is likely to 

seek irrelevant information.

4. Request No. 25 seeks information related to the K-9 training received by the 

supervisors in the K-9 unit. Defendants agreed they would produce these documents. Defendants 

SHALL do so no later than June 21, 2012;

5. In Request No. 37, Plaintiff seeks any law enforcement reports which demonstrate 

that Thomas Thoms has “violently resisted law enforcement officers” before the search warrant 

executed in this case. Plaintiff’s counsel believed that there is a report prepared in relation to the 

search of Plaintiff’s home which indicates that there were earlier law enforcement reports which 

address this topic. As soon as possible, but no later than June 21, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel SHALL 

provide to counsel for Defendants the report which reflects that this earlier report(s) exists so that 

Defendants can investigate;

6. In Request No. 38, Plaintiff seeks the recorded statements of the witnesses to the 

search of her home. Defense counsel admits that the statements were audio recorded but that the 

tapes cannot be located. No later than June 21, 2012, defense counsel SHALL ensure a diligent 

search has occurred to locate these tapes and the results of the search are communicated to 

Plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel SHALL investigate the custom/policy of the BPD as to the 

Case 1:12-cv-01150-JLT Document 27 Filed 06/12/13 Page 2 of 4
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

use/re-use/destruction of audio tapes used in the field of witnesses to record statements as a 

starting point for this diligent search;

7. In Request No. 39, Plaintiff seeks the CJIS printout of all arrests and convictions for 

Thomas Thoms. Defendants have produced a “probation summary” report but this fails to provide 

the requested information. No later than June 21, 2012, Defendants SHALL produce the requested 

information which demonstrates the arrests and convictions for this individual;

8. Requests No. 40 and 41 seek information about a DOJ investigation of the BPD 

which occurred between 8 and 10 years ago as it pertains to the K-9 unit. The parties agree the 

DOJ investigation did not focus on the K-9 unit. Moreover, Defendants assert that the report itself 

is available on the internet which is equally available to Plaintiff and is irrelevant based upon its 

remoteness in time. Plaintiff admitted that she was seeking the BPD’s policy changes or other 

changes made in response to the DOJ investigation. However, it does not appear that these 

requests specifically seek this information. Thus, Plaintiff may file a motion to compel 

information related to DOJ investigation/recommendation related to the K-9 unit but the Court 

strongly encourages her to consider propounding a different request which is narrowly tailored to 

the information sought. Finally, at this time, the Court cannot state unequivocally the information 

is not relevant but any motion on this topic would be required to demonstrate how the information 

sought is relevant;

9. As to Request No. 46, Defendants have produced six CDs of the dispatches for the 

events occurring during the relevant time period. Notably, these CDs include police incidents 

other than the one involving Plaintiff. In addition, Defendants have provided a written dispatch

log which includes only the incident involving Plaintiff. Plaintiff complains that the written log 

does not assist with the six CDs because they do not correlate. Thus, Defendants agreed to seek 

out a CD which includes only the entries related to the search warrant at her house. Failing this, 

they will produce a dispatch log for which covers the same period of time as the six CDs. 

Defendants SHALL produce this information no later than June 21, 2013;

10. Plaintiff complains that counsel improperly instructed Officer Hilliard not to answer 

certain questions at his deposition. However, the Court cannot properly evaluate the objections 

Case 1:12-cv-01150-JLT Document 27 Filed 06/12/13 Page 3 of 4
4

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

without specific citations to the transcript. Thus, should Plaintiff wish to pursue having Officer 

Hilliard submit to a deposition to address the questions he did not answer upon advice of counsel, 

she may file a motion to compel. In the meanwhile, all counsel are urged to cooperate with each 

other and to instruct their witnesses not to answer only consistently with the rules. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(c)(2) [“A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a 

privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 

30(d)(3).”].

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. Any further or amended responses or actions, as described above, SHALL be 

provided no later than June 21, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01150-JLT Document 27 Filed 06/12/13 Page 4 of 4