Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02357/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02357-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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 08cv2357 BTM(PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08cv2357 BTM(PCL)

ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

v.

CITY OF IMPERIAL, OFFICER A.S.

VALENZUELA, OFFICER A. HEREDIA,

and DOES 1-5,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Ruben Garcia has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Lewis’s July 30, 2010

Order on Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Production of Documents. For the reasons

discussed below, Plaintiff’s objections are SUSTAINED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that on November 3, 2007, Officer Abel Heredia, a City of Imperial

police officer, shot him in the back with a Taser while detaining him for investigation of a

minor graffiti charge. (FAC, ¶¶ 14-21.) In his FAC, Plaintiff asserted claims under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 as well as tort claims against Officer Heredia and Officer Valenzuela, another officer

at the scene. Plaintiff also asserted a Monell claim against the City of Imperial (the “City”),

alleging that the City has unlawful customs or practices of (1) improper and inadequate

hiring, training, retention, discipline and/or supervision of its police officers; and (2) permitting

Case 3:08-cv-02357-BTM-PCL Document 117 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 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

 With respect to the other documents listed on the privilege log - an ISO Claimsearch 1

Summary detailing all insurance claims filed by Plaintiff’s family, a transmittal letter, an

instruction letter, Plaintiff’s administrative claim, and various photographs of Plaintiff

submitted with his administrative claim, Judge Lewis held that the documents either were

already in Plaintiff’s possession or irrelevant to the issues in the case. Plaintiff does not

appear to be objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling as to these documents. 

2 08cv2357 BTM(PCL)

or condoning the application of excessive force, including the improper use of Tasers. (FAC,

¶¶ 43-49.) 

On October 30, 2009, Plaintiff served a second set of requests for production of

documents on Defendants. Among other things, the requests sought: (1) documents

concerning any investigation or evaluation conducted by the City or any third party, including

Carl Warren & Co (“CWC”), concerning the tasing and/or arrest of Plaintiff, and

correspondence between the City and CWC regarding the same (Requests Nos. 31 and 32);

and (2) documents concerning the possibility that suspects are trained in mixed martial arts

and documents pertaining to any tactics, techniques, or responses to be used by officers

with respect to subjects or suspects who might be trained in such martial arts (Request No.

43).

Defendants refused to produce documents in response to the requests set forth

above, asserting numerous privileges and lack of relevance. 

In a letter dated December 18, 2009, Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that Defendants’

objections were invalid and pointed out that Defendants had failed to produce a privilege log.

On February 10, 2010, Defendants sent Plaintiff a privilege log containing seven

entries. (Doc. No. 79-3, Ex. P.) In a letter dated March 29, 2010, Defendants supplemented

their privilege log with information regarding the authors and recipients of three of the

entries.

On May 25, 2010, Plaintiff moved to compel the production of documents. In an order

dated July 30, 2010, Magistrate Judge Lewis denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel as it

pertained to the document requests in dispute. Judge Lewis held that the CWC investigation

reports dated 11/05/08, 07/23/08, and 5/15/08, were prepared in anticipation of litigation and

that Plaintiff had failed to establish a substantial need for the documents. Judge Lewis also 1

Case 3:08-cv-02357-BTM-PCL Document 117 Filed 09/17/10 Page 2 of 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

3 08cv2357 BTM(PCL)

held that the documents pertaining to mixed martial arts training of suspects were irrelevant

because there was no evidence to suggest Plaintiff was suspected of having such mixed

martial arts training.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Lewis’s ruling regarding the investigation reports

and the documents pertaining to mixed martial arts training. As discussed below, Plaintiff’s

objections are sustained in part.

When considering objections to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive discovery order

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the district judge must modify or set aside any part of the order

“that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” The “clearly erroneous” standard applies to

the magistrate judge’s factual determinations and discretionary decisions. Computer

Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999). The

“contrary to law” standard applies to a magistrate judge’s purely legal determinations. Id.

With respect to the investigation documents, Plaintiff concedes that the last report

dated November 5, 2008, is work product. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections concern the

reports dated May 15, 2008, and July 23, 2008. These reports were filed after a notice of

claim was filed by Plaintiff on May 2, 2008, but before Plaintiff’s father indicated that they

were represented by an attorney. 

Investigations conducted by a claims adjuster in the ordinary course of business and

not in anticipation of litigation are not protected by the work-product doctrine. Reavis v.

Metro. Prop. and Liab. Ins. Co., 117 F.R.D. 160, 162 (S.D. Cal. 1987). The mere fact that

a plaintiff has filed an administrative claim is not enough to render subsequent investigations

by the defendant’s insurance adjustor “in anticipation of litigation.” See Garcia v. City of El

Centro, 214 F.R.D. 587 (S.D. Cal. 2003). Other circumstances indicating that the claims

adjuster’s actions were taken with an eye toward litigation must be present. For example,

in Garcia, the court held that interviews taken by the claims adjuster after the administrative

claim was rejected and the parties had little hope of resolving the issues other than through

Case 3:08-cv-02357-BTM-PCL Document 117 Filed 09/17/10 Page 3 of 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

4 08cv2357 BTM(PCL)

litigation were protected by the work product doctrine. Id. at 594. 

In this case, there has been no showing that the first two reports were prepared in

anticipation of litigation. Although the July 23, 2008, report begins with the sentence, “This

report and our investigation are done in anticipation of litigation for ultimate transmittal to

defense counsel and with the intent that it remains confidential,” it appears that this is form

language and is not determinative of whether the work product doctrine applies. There is

no evidence that Defendants were represented by an attorney at the time these reports were

prepared. Similarly, there is no evidence of events causing Defendants to anticipate

imminent litigation. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the reports were prepared in the

ordinary course of business and are discoverable. 

As for the documents pertaining to mixed martial arts training, the Court finds that the

documents are relevant if Heredia testifies consistent with his deposition testimony regarding

any mixed martial arts training of suspects or subjects and/or police officer training relating

thereto. If Defendants do not intend to introduce any evidence regarding mixed martial

training, the parties may enter into an agreement to exclude such evidence and avoid

discovery on the issue. In the absence of such a stipulation, Defendants shall produce the

documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Doc. Request No. 43.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Lewis’s

July 30, 2010 order are SUSTAINED IN PART. Responsive documents shall be produced

by Defendants within 10 days of the entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 17, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02357-BTM-PCL Document 117 Filed 09/17/10 Page 4 of 4