Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00408-6/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

27

28

08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JOHN DAUGHTERY, CDCR

#F-79985,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENNIS WILSON, San Diego Police

Officer; ESMERALDA TAGABAN, San

Diego Police Officer; SERGEANT

GRIFFIN; DETECTIVE LEMUS,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Doc. No. 58]

On September 9, 2008, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a Complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

filed a document entitled “Notice of Motion to Modify Subpoena Duces

Tecum Pursuant to Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.3(g) and C.C.P.

§ 1987.1,” which the Court construed as a motion for a protective order.

Doc. Nos. 58 & 59. The Court issued a briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s

motion [Doc. No. 59] and, on October 2, 2008, Defendants filed an

opposition. Doc. No. 60. Plaintiff did not file a reply and the Court

took the matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)

[Doc. No. 59].

///

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 62 Filed 10/23/08 Page 1 of 6
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 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

BACKGROUND

In his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff alleges that on

March 9, 2006, San Diego Police Officers Wilson and Tagaban used

excessive force prior to arresting him in violation of the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments. Doc. No. 1. He further alleges that San Diego

Police Sergeant Griffin and Detective Lemus were “integral participants”

in the allegedly unlawful beating because they witnessed it but did

nothing to intervene. Id. at 2, 4. 

Plaintiff also alleges, under an additional cause of action listed

as “Count 5," that the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police

Department violated his Fourth Amendment rights and committed the “state

tort[s]” of “Gov’t Code § 810 et seq., assault and battery P.C. 245 and

negligence in failure to provide medical assistance.” FAC at 7.

Plaintiff elaborates on this allegation, explaining that “[b]oth the

City of San Diego and the Police Department are liable for injuries

proximately caused by acts or omissions of employees of public entities

acting within scope of their employment, if the acts or omissions would,

apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against

those employees.” Id. (paraphrasing Government Code § 815.2). In other

words, Plaintiff claims that both entities are “vicariously liable under

the doctrine of respondeat superior” for the officers’ conduct. Id.

The City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department’s motion to

dismiss Count 5 is pending before the Court. Doc. No. 42.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 62 Filed 10/23/08 Page 2 of 6
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 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party

from whom discovery is sought to move for a protective order. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(c)(1). In ruling on such a motion, 

The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a

party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or

undue burden or expense, including one or more of the

following:

(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;

(B) specifying terms, including time and place, for the

disclosure or discovery;

(C) prescribing a discovery method other than the

one selected by the party seeking discovery;

(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting

the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters;

...

Id. Rule 26(c) “was enacted as a safeguard for the protection of

parties and witnesses in view of the broad discovery rights authorized

in Rule 26(b).” U.S. v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc., 666 F.2d 364,

368-69 (9th Cir. 1982). “District courts need not condone the use of

discovery to engage in ‘fishing expedition[s].’” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc.,

364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004).

DISCUSSION

The subpoena Plaintiff challenges was issued to the San Diego

County Sheriff’s Department, Records Department. Pl.’s Mot. at 2. It

commands production to Defendants of “Any and all copies of the booking

records, including photos, of WILLIAM JOHN DAUGHTERY... [i]ncluding, but

not limited to Booking Numbers 7735747 and 6704525.” Id. (see also

subpoena attached to motion). Plaintiff objects that the subpoena is

overbroad because it is not limited to the time period relevant to the

lawsuit. Id. at 2. Because the claims in his FAC relate only to

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 62 Filed 10/23/08 Page 3 of 6
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 Plaintiff has not yet succeeded in effecting service of process on Officer

Wilson. See Doc. No. 48. 

4 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

several officers’ use of excessive force during Plaintiff’s arrest on

March 9, 2006, Plaintiff asks the Court to limit the scope of the

subpoena to documents existing from January 1, 2006 to the present. Id.

at 3. Any booking records prior to 2006 would, in Plaintiff’s view,

provide irrelevant, prejudicial information that Defendants would try to

use as impermissible character impeachment evidence. Id. at 2.

In their two-page opposition, Defendants “submit on the issues of

relevance and the scope of discovery” and state only that the intent of

the subpoena is to identify relevant evidence within the parameters of

the Federal Rules of Evidence and that “it is notable that it is the

Plaintiff who is placing his health and well being, and his credibility,

at issue.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 1-2. 

Defendants fail to explain how Plaintiff’s booking records prior to

March 9, 2006 would be relevant to the claims or defenses in the case or

how they would be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff’s claims

against the individual officers are all premised upon the use of

excessive force on March 9, 2006, in violation of the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments. FAC at 4-6. Plaintiff’s claims against the City

of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department seek to impose

respondeat superior liability on these entities for the events that

occurred on March 9, 2006. Id. at 7. Accordingly, the Court finds the

booking records prior to March 9, 2006 are not relevant to any of

Plaintiff’s claims.

The same is true of the defenses raised by Defendants. In the

answer three of the four named officers filed in response to the FAC1,

the officers raise twenty-three affirmative defenses. Doc. No. 27.

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 62 Filed 10/23/08 Page 4 of 6
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 The Court is providing only hypothetical arguments based on Defendants’

assertions and makes no finding as to whether any of these circumstances exist in this

case.

5 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

However, Defendants do not argue that booking records prior to March 9,

2006, would be relevant to any of these affirmative defenses nor does

the Court discern any potential relevance. As such, Defendants’ request

for booking records created prior to Plaintiff’s March 9, 2006 arrest

date appears to be nothing more than an improper fishing expedition.

Rivera, 364 F.3d at 1072.

Defendants argument that these records are somehow rendered

relevant because Plaintiff has placed his health and credibility at

issue also lacks merit. While Defendants fail to elaborate on this

assertion, they presumably allude to potential trial arguments such as,

for example, that Plaintiff’s medical claim lacks merit because he had

preexisting medical conditions or that his anticipated testimony lacks

credibility.2 However, criminal booking records are unlikely to contain

Plaintiff’s past medical history. And, again, Defendants have not

provided the Court with any arguments establishing the relevance of the

challenged records.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants’

subpoena is overbroad and must be limited as to time. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(c)(1). While the arrest at issue in the FAC did not take place

until March 9, 2006, Plaintiff objects only to booking records prior to

January 1, 2006, so the Court will use that date.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 62 Filed 10/23/08 Page 5 of 6
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 08cv0408-WQH (BLM)

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order is hereby GRANTED.

Defendants’ subpoena to the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department,

Records Department shall be limited to any and all copies of the booking

records, including photos, of William John Daughtery created from

January 1, 2006 to the present. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 23, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE WILLIAM Q. HAYES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-00408-WQH-BLM Document 62 Filed 10/23/08 Page 6 of 6