Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06371/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06371-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORLANDO JAVIER GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO; SGT. MICHAEL

MANFREDI; OFFICERS SEAN T.

PLYMALE, SAMMY ASHWORTH, BRIAN

PHILLIPS, MARCUS TAFOYA, ART

R. RODRIGUEZ; JERRY DYER,

Chief of the Fresno Police

Department, in Their 

Individual and Official

Capacities, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06371-OWW-SMS

ORDER re: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS; ANSWERS TO

INTERROGATORIES AND DEPOSITION

TESTIMONY (Doc. 40)

Plaintiff, Orlando Javier Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”), filed the

instant motion to compel production of documents and responses to

interrogatories and deposition testimony on July 28, 2006 (Doc.

40). The motion was heard on September 1, 2006, before the

Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. 

Jacob M. Weisberg, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. James

J. Arendt, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants, City of Fresno

(“City”), Sgt. Michael Manfredi, Officer Sean T. Plymale and

Chief of Fresno Police Department Jerry Dyer.

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 77 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 9
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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s civil rights lawsuit, originally filed in Fresno

County Superior Court, was removed to U.S. District Court on or

about October 6, 2004 (Doc. 1). All Defendants are sued in their

individual as well as official capacities. Plaintiff’s

allegations arise out of an incident that occurred on May 10,

2003. The allegations include (1) violations of the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments based on Defendants’ false arrest of

Plaintiff, the unreasonable use of force, including allegations

that the City has a policy, pattern, practice and custom of

arresting individuals by using improper means (excessive force),

of detaining individuals without probable cause, of failure to

supervise on excessive force issues, and of condoning and

encouraging the unconstitutional conduct of officers (making

inaccurate/false statements in police reports to justify the use

of excessive force); (2) assault and battery; (3) false arrest

and imprisonment; and, (4) negligence. 

The parties filed their Joint Stipulation Re: Discovery

Disagreement on August 28, 2006 (Doc. 56). At hearing and after

argument, it was concluded this Court would need to make use of

confidential Internal Affairs (IA) records “relating to the

Rolando Celdon matter” already produced to and in the custody of

the Honorable Dennis L. Beck for in camera review regarding the

Rodriguez vs. City of Fresno, et al. (1:05-cv-01017-OWW-DLB) and

Rendon vs. City of Fresno et al. (1:05-cv-00661-OWW-DLB) cases. 

Judge Beck, in the process of reviewing the several hundreds of

pages of Celdon documents, forwarded the records to this Court by

mid-October upon settlement of the Rodriguez and Rendon matters.

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 77 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 9
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

 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

According to the First Amended Complaint, filed on March 17,

2005 (Doc. 12), the Fresno Police Department responded to a

dispatched call concerning a woman who alleged that she had been

assaulted and threatened by her ex-boyfriend, Plaintiff Orlando

Gonzalez. It was determined the Plaintiff was on active parole.

The Defendant Officers Manfredi, Plymale and others

responded to Plaintiff’s residence, entered with a key provided

by Plaintiff’s mother, and ultimately found Plaintiff seated in a

darkened bedroom with another male, both of whom refused commands

to show the officers their hands. A scuffle ultimately developed

involving Defendant Manfredi and Defendant Plymale’s canine,

Tymo. Plaintiff was eventually arrested for making terrorist

threats, child endangerment, domestic battery, resisting arrest

and a parole violation. Plaintiff was ultimately charged only

with resisting arrest. Plaintiff alleges that he sustained

physical, mental and economic injuries during the incident.

Plaintiff and Defendants have worked out other discovery

disputes either among themselves or with the assistance of the

Court informally. This particular discovery dispute focuses on

Defendants Manfredi and Plymale and Plaintiff’s theory of the

case that these two officers have a history of making inaccurate

statements in police reports to justify the use of excessive

force. To support that contention and to establish Plaintiff’s

Monell claims for negligent hiring, training, staffing, and

supervision specifically focusing on Officers Manfredi and

Plymale’s alleged history of making inaccurate statements in

police reports, Plaintiff seeks copies of the entire City of

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 77 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 9
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

Fresno Police Department IA file in what has come to be known as

“the Rolando Celdon matter.” Plaintiff’s contentions, set forth

in the Joint Stipulation, pages 4-5 (Doc. 56), state “According

to statements of the Fresno Police Department reported in the

Fresno Bee, the Police Department has instituted administrative

procedures to terminate the employment of Officers Plymale and

Manfredi as a result of their actions in a case involving Celdon. 

The Celdon case involves Plymale, Tymo and Manfredi, the same

individuals (and dog) involved in Gonzalez [the herein case]. If

the investigation conducted by the department in Celdon or any

other case verifies use of excessive force and the making of

inaccurate statements in a police report to cover up the use of

excessive force, it is relevant and admissible in this case.” 

Citing Henry vs. County of Shasta, 132 F.3d 512, 519-520

(9 Cir. 1997) relying on Grandstaff vs. City of Borger, 767 th

F.2d 161 (5 Cir. 1985), Judge Beck ruled that post-event th

evidence in § 1983 municipal liability cases is, at the very

least, discoverable, requiring the City in the Rodriguez case to

provide similarly requested information regarding an officer in

that case who, coincidentally, used to be a defendant in this

case, former Defendant Marcus Tafoya.

LEGAL STANDARD

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

provides as follows:

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

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 77 Filed 02/13/07 Page 4 of 9
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

knowledge of any discoverable matter...The

information sought need not be admissible at

trial if the information sought appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.

DISCUSSION

A. Dispute Regarding Written Discovery - 

It appears to the Court that the two (2) demands at

issue appear to be the same. Request for Production Number 20

and Request for Production No. 1, Set 2 read:

Please produce all documents in your

possession custody or control relating to

complaints from any source concerning

excessive use of force on the part of Officer

Sean T. Plymale and Sgt. Michael Manfredi

from the date of the incident to March 13,

2006. This request includes, but is not

limited, to the complaints themselves, any

follow-up internal affairs investigations of

the complaints, and conclusions rendered

after the investigations.

As noted above, the parties worked out much of their

differences in a March 30, 2006, telephonic conference call with

the Court, the Defendants agreeing to produce any and all

information responsive to the demands occurring prior to the date

of the subject incident. At hearing with this Court, the crux of

the argument had to do with any and all potential discovery that

was post-incident, documents that related to any matters relating

to Offficers Manfredi and/or Officer Plymale and his canine,

Tymo, that occurred after May 10, 2003, the date of the incident

that is the subject of this action. 

The Celdon matter occurred on October 10, 2005.

The Court herself read the hundreds of pages of

documents regarding the Internal Affairs investigation in the

Celdon matter. Mindful of the Henry ruling, a case quite

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 77 Filed 02/13/07 Page 5 of 9
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

6

coincidentally that venues in the Eastern District of California,

Circuit Judge Reinhardt’s words are controlling:

“...we reiterate our rule that post-event

evidence is not only admissible for purposes

of proving the existence of a municipal

defendant’s policy or custom, but is highly

probative with respect to that inquiry.” Id.

At 519.

As to both Officer Manfredi as well as Officer Plymale

and his canine, Tymo, any and all information set forth

throughout the Celdon IA investigation is relevant to Plaintiff’s

claims and is therefore discoverable. Defendants shall therefore

provide the requested information relating to these officers for

the time period beginning with the start of their employment with

the Fresno Police Department to the present, including any and

all complaints, investigations, reports, interviews, etc., in the

Celdon matter. Production shall include the conclusions and

recommendations from the IA investigations, including Celdon,

which are relevant to Monell issues raised in the complaint. 

Any and all information produced pursuant to this Order

is subject to a detailed and strict stipulated protective order,

to include such proscriptions as documents are to be viewed and

used only by the attorneys, counsel’s staff persons, and experts

ONLY. NO copies are to be made without permission of the Court. 

No one piece of paper nor any group of documents produced

pursuant to this Order shall be used for any purpose other than

for the litigation of this lawsuit. All copies shall be returned

to the Defendants and/or destroyed after this matter is

concluded. NO party to this lawsuit shall view or be given

copies of these documents without Court approval prior to trial. 

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 77 Filed 02/13/07 Page 6 of 9
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

7

Note: The Court read and reviewed a great deal of

information from the Celdon matter that has nothing to do with

either Officer Manfredi or Officer Plymale and Tymo.

B. Dispute Regarding Deposition Testimony -

With regard to instructions by defense counsel to

Defendants Manfredi and Plymale not to answer questions posed at

depositions, the Order made above obviates the need to discuss

items 2-4 regarding Manfredi, set forth on page 3, lines 15-21 of

the Joint Statement. Production of the Celdon materials should

answer those questions for Plaintiff. Similarly, with regard to

the deposition questions of Plymale set forth in the Joint

Statement on page 3-4, lines 24-27 and 1-2, the answers will be

contained in the Celdon production.

The one inquiry, then, regarding the eight allegations

of unprofessional conduct or poor judgment made regarding

Manfredi appears to be the remaining contention for the Court to

deal with. Plaintiff claims “that eight allegations of

unprofessional conduct or poor judgment against a police officer

occurring prior to the incident in question is relevant to Monell

claims for negligent hiring, training, staffing, and supervision

and may also be relevant to support Plaintiff’s theory discussed

below that Officers Manfredi and Plymale have a history of making

inaccurate statements in police reports to justify the use of

excessive force.” See Joint Statement, page -4-, lines 7-11.

Defendant’s counsel, James J. Arendt, declares that he

personally reviewed these IA investigations and none of them

contained any allegations of excessive force, false arrest,

fabrication of reports, or any other issues relevant to this

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 77 Filed 02/13/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

lawsuit. “For example,” Arendt states, “a complaint for

insubordination to a ranking officer has no relevance to

establishing a Monell claim for failure to supervise on excessive

force issues, nor would it lead to discoverable information.” 

See Joint Statement, page -17-, lines 21-23. 

More is at issue here than excessive force. 

Fabrication of reports by or at the direction of either or both

Defendants seems to be taking center stage. To the extent any or

all of those other eight IA investigations deal with

falsification of reports and/or, for example, insubordination due

to allegations of false report writing, the information is

relevant and discoverable. Whether it will be deemed admissible

at trial is a separate matter not timely dealt with here. 

Plaintiff’s counsel has asked that the Honorable Oliver

W. Wanger conduct an in camera review of those eight individual

IA investigations to determine discoverability. It would not be

Judge Wanger who would conduct that discovery task; it would be

this Court as discovery monitor and manager. This Court,

however, sees no need to spend any more time reviewing IA files. 

The Celdon review alone took many hours. The Court is in no

position to review all IA investigation files in all cases

involving law enforcement excessive force claims. Seasoned

counsel who substantially litigate in this particular area of the

law know or should know what is discoverable based on repeat

“visits” to this Court and others here in the Fresno Division of

the Eastern District of California.

//

/ 

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 77 Filed 02/13/07 Page 8 of 9
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 See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F2d 1027, 1033 (9 Cir. 1990); Franklin Savings Ass’n v. Ryan, 1 th

922 F2d 209, 211 (4 Cir. 1991). th

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, then, that counsel for Defendants

Manfredi and Plymale go back to those eight IA investigations and

produce any and all complaints, investigations, reports,

interviews, etc., regarding Defendant Manfredi that have to do

with a Monell claim focusing on excessive force and/or

encouraging others to or writing or producing himself false

incident/police reports. The Court agrees that as a hypothetical

insubordination having to do with property damage or shift

detail/assignments, or inability to get along with colleagues

would not be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims herein. Cranky or

bossy police officers do not appear to be the focus of this

lawsuit. Counsel shall produce a summary of what, if any,

discipline was imposed but need not produce the findings and

conclusions of the Internal Affairs Officers themselves.1

CONCLUSION

The discovery as ordered herein shall be produced to

Plaintiff’s counsel on or before February 26, 2007 by 5:00 p.m.

Counsel for Defendants shall arrange to pick up the packet

of discovery originally produced to Judge Beck by February 16,

2007. To the extent that entire packet is deemed relevant and

discoverable by this Court, having the copies already made should

facilitate copying for purposes of production.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 77 Filed 02/13/07 Page 9 of 9