Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01653/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01653-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATRINA HAUGHT, No. 2:11-CV-1653-JAM-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CITY OF ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action. 

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 77). In her motion, plaintiff seeks: 

(1) an order compelling non-party witness Goodwin to provide answers to deposition questions;

(2) an order compelling defendants’ witnesses Miller and Blunk; and (3) an order compelling

further responses to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, set 5, propounded to

defendants. The parties appeared at a hearing on September 18, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. before the

undersigned in Redding, California. John Dugan Barr, Esq., and Cathleen Theresa Barr, Esq.,

appeared for plaintiff. Bruce Alan Kilday, Esq., appeared for defendants. Andrew T. Caulfield,

Esq., and Hayes H. Gable, Esq., appeared for non-party witness Goodwin. 

/ / /

1

Case 2:11-cv-01653-JAM-CMK Document 92 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 7
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

Following arguments by the parties, the court issued an order on September 23,

2015, granting plaintiff’s motion in part, denying the motion in part, and deferring the motion as

to requests for production of documents because the parties: (1) failed to file a joint statement;

and (2) indicated that many, if not all, of the remaining disputed issued regarding requests for

production could be resolved by way of further meet-and-confer efforts and an appropriate

protective order. The parties were directed to submit a joint statement regarding the remaining

disputed discovery along with a stipulated protective order. The parties’ joint statement was

submitted on September 30, 2015, and stipulated protective orders were issued on September 28,

2015 (as to documents sought relating to Goodwin) and on October 21, 2015 (as to all other

documents sought).

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations

 Plaintiff alleges that, on May 29, 2010, she was arrested by City of Anderson

police officer Goodwin. After the arrest, Goodwin “delivered custody of plaintiff” to fellow

officer Bryan Benson, who is not a defendant to this action. Plaintiff claims that the purpose of

the transfer was to allow Benson to transport plaintiff “unobserved and unchaperoned.” Plaintiff

claims that Benson deviated significantly from the route to the jail, drove to a remote location,

stopped the car, kept plaintiff in the car, and attempted to persuade plaintiff to perform various

sex acts on him. When plaintiff refused, Benson drove to a concealed location and raped

plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that, as a consequence, she “sustained severe physical and emotional

injuries. . . .” In additional to civil rights claims against individuals and the City of Anderson,

plaintiff asserts state law claims based on “assault, battery, rape, and kidnapping.” 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:11-cv-01653-JAM-CMK Document 92 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 7
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

B. Procedural History

The current action proceeds against the City of Anderson, the City of Anderson

Police Department, and Dale Webb in his official capacity as the Chief of Police for the City of

Anderson Police Department. Goodwin, who had originally been named in the complaint, was

dismissed on November 11, 2013, on stipulation of the parties (see Doc. 13). Pursuant to the

District Judge’s August 20, 2015, amended scheduling order, discovery closes on November 20,

2016, and dispositive motions are due by December 29, 2015. 

II. DISCUSSION

Remaining after the court’s September 23, 2015, order is plaintiff motion for an

order compelling defendants’ further responses to requests for production of documents. At

issue are requests for production 78, 79, 91, 92, 96, 97, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, and 117. 

A. Documents Related to Arbitration Proceedings Regarding Goodwin 

In dispute are requests for production 78 and 79.

78 – Any and all reports, tests, or evaluation results

(whether final, preliminary or in rough form) drafted, compiled, or

reviewed by any person regarding or in any way related to any

arbitration proceeding regarding Matthew Goodwin and his

employment with and/or termination from the Anderson Police

Department.

79 – Any and all documents and tangible things (including

letters and email transmissions), provided to or possessed by the

Anderson Police Department from anyone involved in any

arbitration proceedings regarding Matthew Goodwin and his

employment with and/or termination from the Anderson Police

Department. 

In their initial responses to these requests, defendants agreed to produce “records pertaining to

Goodwin’s arbitration proceedings” subject to a protective order. In the September 30, 2015,

joint statement, defendants now object on the following grounds: (1) privacy; (2) attorney-client

privilege; (3) relevance; and (4) oppression and burden. As to the attorney-client privilege,

defendants state that they “will not prepare a privilege log absent a court order” due to the “effort

3

Case 2:11-cv-01653-JAM-CMK Document 92 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 7
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

involved in preparing an item-by-item privilege log containing all of the information Plaintiff is

seeking.” Defendants add:

Notwithstanding Defendants’ response, all parties agreed at Mr.

Goodwin’s deposition for the production of documents and things related

to the arbitration proceedings regarding Mr. Goodwin pursuant to a

protective order. It was also agreed upon that Mr. Goodwin’s attorney,

Andrew Caulfield, would prepare the protective order for circulation and

approval. As the protective order was recently signed and approved by the

Court, we will produce the Arbitration Award by Christopher D. Burdick

relating to Mr. Goodwin pursuant to that order. 

In their initial responses, defendants agreed to produce documents relating to

arbitration proceedings regarding Goodwin subject to a protective order. Defendants now state,

however, that they will only produce “the Arbitration Award by Christopher D. Burdick.”

Defendants do not provide any rationale for limiting production of documents to just the award

relating to the Burdick case instead of all documentation of all arbitrations regarding Goodwin. 

Given that an appropriate protective order has been issued, the court will direct defendants to

produce all documentation relating to all arbitration proceedings regarding Goodwin. If the

Burdick case was the only arbitration proceeding regarding Goodwin, defendants shall so state.

To the extent defendants assert that documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege,

defendants shall also serve a privilege log. 

B. Documents Relating to Complaints Regarding Miller and Blunk

In dispute are requests for production 91, 92, 96, and 97 (as to Miller) and 

requests for production 113, 114, 115, 116, and 117 (as to Blunk).

91 – Any and all documentation of any citizen complaint

against Officer Sean Miller made prior to subject incident.

92 – Any and all documentation of any citizen complaint

against Officer Sean Miller made after subject incident.

96 – A copy of any and all Employee Incident Reports

created pursuant to Anderson Police Department Policy 1003 as to

Sean Miller. 

97 – Any and all documents in Sean Miller’s personnel file.

4

Case 2:11-cv-01653-JAM-CMK Document 92 Filed 11/06/15 Page 4 of 7
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

113 – Any and all documentation of any citizen complaints

against Steven Blunk made prior to subject incident.

114 – Any and all documentation of any citizen complaints

against Steven Blunk made after subject incident.

115 – Any and all documentation relating to accusations

made about Officer Steven Blunk whether formal or informal,

concerning Steven Blunk’s contact with Bryan Benson after May

28, 2010.

116 – Any and all documentation relating to accusations

made about Officer Steven Blunk whether formal or informal,

concerning Steven Blunk’s contact with Matthew Goodwin after

May 28, 2010.

117 – A copy of any and all Employee Incident Reports

created pursuant to Anderson Police Department Policy 1003 as to

Steven Blunk. 

Defendants object that the requests are overbroad in that plaintiff has not limited then in time. 

Defendants agree to produce “relevant personnel records” covering the time period from five

years prior to the May 2010 incident to five years after the incident. Defendants also object

based on privacy, but state that the 10-year limitation in scope will also satisfy that concern. 

To the extent defendants argue that documents outside the proposed 10-year

window are not relevant, the court disagrees. See Kaur v. City of Lodi, 2015 WL 136044 (E.D.

Cal. Jan. 9, 2015). 

To the extent defendants assert that production of documents outside the 10-year

window would be burdensome or oppressive, they offer no factual bases upon which to sustain

such an objection. Specifically, while defendants state that the officers “have been with the

Anderson Police Department for over a decade,” they do not state when the officers first began

working for the Anderson Police Department or when they ended such employment, if they have. 

As such, any assertion of burden or oppression in producing the requested documents without

limitation in time as simply not supported. If the officers are still working for the Anderson

Police Department, then “a decade” would be within defendants’ proposed 10-year window (five

years before and five years after the subject incident in 2010). If, however, the officers stopped

5

Case 2:11-cv-01653-JAM-CMK Document 92 Filed 11/06/15 Page 5 of 7
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

working for the police department in 2012, then “a decade” would encompass a time period up to

eight years prior to the subject incident. Or, it is possible that “over a decade” means 25 years, in

which case producing responsive documents going back so many years prior to the 2010 incident

would indeed constitute a burden. Defendants simply have not provided the court with enough

information to sustain such an objection. 

Finally, to the extent defendants object based on privacy, the officers’ privacy

rights are preserved by the October 21, 2015, protective order. 

Defendants’ objections are overruled and defendants will be directed to produce

all documents responsive to these requests.

C. Documents Relating to Investigations of Benson and Goodwin

In dispute are requests for production 110 and 112.

110 – Any and all documentation including but not limited

to any correspondence, emails, text messages, social media

messages, or letters with any person concerning the investigation

of Bryan Benson.

112 – Any and all documentation including but not limited

to any correspondence, emails, text messages, social media

messages, or letters with any person concerning the investigation

of Matthew Goodwin.

Defendants object on the grounds that the requests seek documents protected by the attorneyclient privilege to the extent they describe communications between the City of Anderson and its

attorneys. Defendants once again state that they “will not prepare a privilege log absent a court

order.” Plaintiff states that she is not seeking privileged attorney-client communications. 

Because the parties agree that communications between the City of Anderson and

its attorneys are protected, defendants will be directed to serve all other documents regarding the

investigations of Benson and Goodwin. 

/ / /

/ / / 

/ / /

6

Case 2:11-cv-01653-JAM-CMK Document 92 Filed 11/06/15 Page 6 of 7
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

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The remainder of plaintiff’s motion to compel (Doc. 77) as to plaintiff’s

requests for production of documents, set 5, is granted;

2. To the extent they have not already done so, defendants shall serve

supplemental responses along with all responsive documents, consistent with the foregoing, by

November 20, 2015. 

DATED: November 6, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 2:11-cv-01653-JAM-CMK Document 92 Filed 11/06/15 Page 7 of 7