Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01874/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01874-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRY G. STEELE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1874 DAD P

vs.

MARK McMAHON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has moved to compel defendant McMahon to produce documents in

response to Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of plaintiff’s request for production of documents dated March

11, 2006. Plaintiff contends that documents showing past mistreatment of citizens by defendant

are relevant to plaintiff’s claim of excessive force. Plaintiff concedes that evidence of other

crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that

he acted in conformity therewith, but he argues that evidence of prior incidents might lead to the

discovery of evidence admissible for other purposes. 

In opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendant makes the following points: 

plaintiff’s claims arise from injuries allegedly suffered on September 11, 2004, when he resisted

arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol with a suspended license; plaintiff was

subsequently convicted of felony DUI and the felony of eluding a pursuing peace officer while

Case 2:05-cv-01874-DAD Document 42 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 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

2

driving in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property; defendant

McMahon is the only defendant in this action; neither the State of California nor the Department

of the Highway Patrol is a party to this action; all documents at issue are in the custody or control

of the California Highway Patrol and can be obtained from these non-parties only by subpoena;

in Nos. 2, 3, and 4, plaintiff requests broad categories of training and disciplinary procedures of

the California Highway Patrol that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence relevant to plaintiff’s claim that defendant unreasonably used his baton in

the course of arresting an intoxicated felony suspect; in Nos. 5 and 7, plaintiff requests

documents involving third parties held by non-party California Highway Patrol and protected

from disclosure by the official information privilege and by the rights of privacy of defendant and

third parties. Defendant cites relevant authorities and provides copies of the discovery requests

and responses. Defendant offers the declarations of Susan Tinsley, official custodian of records

of the California Highway Patrol, and Jonathan Rothman, general counsel of the California

Highway Patrol. Plaintiff did not file a reply to defendant’s opposition.

The court finds that the documents requested are not in defendant’s possession,

custody or control. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). In addition, the court sustains defendant’s

objection that the requests at issue are overly broad and without reasonable limitation in scope.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 17, 2006 motion to

compel is denied.

DATED: October 23, 2006.

DAD:13

stee1874.mtc

Case 2:05-cv-01874-DAD Document 42 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2