Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01483/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01483-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE ESTATE OF CECIL ELKINS, JR., et 

al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB

ORDER RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 12, 2013. 

The action is currently proceeding on the fourth amended complaint filed on April 28, 2015. The 

allegations in the complaint relate to November 13, 2012 incident in which Cecil Elkins 

(hereafter decedent) fled from police and was shot in the back by Defendant Hipolito Pelayo. 

(ECF No. 72 at ¶ 14.) Decedent died as a result of his injuries. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs bring this 

action alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, deprivation of family 

relationship in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and state law claims for wrongful death, 

assault, battery, and violation of the Bane Act.

Plaintiffs have served a discovery requests seeking Defendant Pelayo’s personnel records 

Case 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB Document 82 Filed 11/03/15 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

27

28

2

to determine if there have been prior reports of excessive force against Defendant. Defendant 

objected to the discovery requests on the grounds that they sought information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, and/or the 

official information privilege. Defendant further objected to the extent the requests violated

privacy interests of any third parties, including but not limited to addresses, telephone numbers, 

or other personal information that is protected by California and/or federal law. Finally, 

Defendant objected that the requests were not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, nor 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

On November 2, 2015, the Court conducted an informal telephonic discovery dispute 

hearing. Counsel Nichelle Jones appeared for Plaintiff and counsel Neli Palma appeared for 

Defendant. 

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests that the Court resolve the discovery dispute and argues that California 

law does not apply in federal court. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not 

produced a privilege log and has therefore failed to meet his burden to show that he is entitled to 

any privilege. Plaintiff seeks records and documents pertaining to prior complaints of excessive 

force made against Defendant Pelayo. 

Defendant responds that in addition to the objections made in the discovery responses, 

discovery of his personnel records violates his right to privacy and personal security, the 

information is protected under the California Constitution, California Penal Code section 832, et 

seq. and California Evidence Code section 1043, et seq. Defendant contends that, while federal 

law controls in this area, the Court should use California law as a guide in interpreting the scope 

of the federal privilege. Further, Defendant replies that the information sought is irrelevant in 

this action.

During the teleconference, Plaintiffs indicated that they were also seeking Defendant 

Pelayo’s performance evaluations. However, the letter brief submitted by Plaintiff only raised 

the issue of prior complaints of excessive force against Defendant Pelayo. Therefore, this order 

Case 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB Document 82 Filed 11/03/15 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

27

28

3

is limited to the issue raised in the parties’ letter briefs, any prior complaints of use of excessive 

force by Defendant Pelayo.

A. Relevancy

Defendant contends that information on prior excessive force claims filed against him is 

irrelevant in this action. Under the federal rules, a party “may obtain discovery regarding any 

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . . Relevant information 

need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevancy to the subject matter of 

the litigation “has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that 

reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” 

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Discovery is designed to help 

define and clarify the issues. Id. Although relevancy is broadly defined for the purposes of 

discovery, it does have “ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 

F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citations omitted).

“Complaints against officers ... may show, among other things, the character or proclivity 

of such officers toward violent behavior or possible bias.” Taylor v. Los Angeles Police 

Department, No. EDCV99–0383–RT(RCX), 1999 WL 33101661, *4 (C.D. Cal.1999); see also

Hamilton v. Quinonez, No. 1:14-cv-1216-LJO-MJS (PC), 2015 WL 3660138, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 

June 10, 2015) (evidence of prior complaints inadmissible to prove character could be admissible 

for other purposes); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citizen 

complaints lodged against an officer are relevant to providing a defendant’s history or pattern of 

such behavior); Miller v. Panucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 296 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (finding request for 

citizen complaints against officer in excessive force action relevant). Courts have found that 

prior complaints made against a defendant of excessive force are discoverable when sufficiently 

similar to the claims brought in the instant suit. Chatman v. Felker, No. CIV S-93-2415 JAM 

KJM P, 2009 WL 173515, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2009). Information such as that requested 

here can be used in determining credibility or in impeaching or cross-examining a witness at 

trial. Renshaw v. Ravert, 82 F.R.D. 361, 363 (E.D. Penn. 1979). 

Case 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB Document 82 Filed 11/03/15 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

27

28

4

Given the broad definition of relevancy under the Federal Rules, Plaintiffs’ request is 

relevant to the issues and defenses presented in this action. Defendant argues that the 

information would be character evidence and would be excluded by Rule 403. However, 

determining whether the information is discoverable does not mean that it must be admissible at 

trial. Defendant’s 403 argument can properly be raised in a motion for limine to exclude 

evidence, but does not make the information undiscoverable.

The Court finds that the request for information regarding prior complaints of the use of 

excessive force by Defendant Pelayo is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. 

B. Privacy Rights

Defendant also contends that the information implicates privacy rights that are protected 

under California law. In considering whether to apply California law limiting access to law 

enforcement records, some courts find that applying California privilege law would severely 

limit a plaintiff’s access to police files and this is in conflict with the liberal discovery rules 

under federal law. Miller, 141 F.R.D. at 298-99. Other courts find that the privacy rights of law 

enforcement records are not inconsequential and apply a balancing test to determine whether the 

need for the information outweighs the privacy right at issue. Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616. 

Under federal privilege doctrine, government personnel files are considered official 

information and, in determining whether the files sought are privileged, the court must weigh the 

potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. Sanchez v. City of Santa

Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining privilege, courts give some weight 

to the privacy rights protected by state constitutions and statutes, but balance those rights against 

the great weight afforded to federal law in civil rights cases against law enforcement. Soto, 162 

F.R.D. at 616.

This Court has previously addressed this issue and agrees that some weight should be 

given to the privacy rights protected by state constitutions and statutes. Taylor v. O'Hanneson, 

No. 1:11-CV-00538-LJO, 2014 WL 2696585, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2014). This balancing is 

conducted on a case by case basis based upon the fact specific situation that has been presented 

Case 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB Document 82 Filed 11/03/15 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

27

28

5

to the court. Miller, 141 F.R.D. at 300.

In weighing Defendant’s privacy interest against the great weight afforded to federal law 

in civil rights cases against law enforcement, Plaintiffs’ need for the information outweighs the 

privacy interest under state law. The records requested, prior complaints regarding the use of 

excessive force by Defendant Pelayo, does not implicate the type of highly personal information 

that warrants constitutional safeguards. Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 411 

(C.D. Cal. 2005). Therefore, Defendant’s privacy interest in these records is not substantial. Id. 

Further, Plaintiffs have no other manner in which to obtain the information sought. 

The Court also considers that the parties have entered into a protective order in this 

action. The protective order will sufficiently protect Defendant Pelayo’s privacy rights as it 

limits who the information may be made available to, provides the information may only be used 

in this action, and requires all confidential information to be destroyed or returned to Defendant 

at the close of this action. 

Balancing the interests represented here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs need for the 

information outweighs Defendant’s privacy interest. 

C. Privilege

Defendant also objected to production of the information arguing it is protected by the 

attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, and/or the 

official information privilege. However, Defendant did not comply with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

Rule 26 provides that when otherwise discoverable information is withheld under the 

rules on claims that it is privileged, any such claim shall be expressly made and shall describe the 

nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed, in a manner that 

will enable assessment of the applicability of the privilege or protection without revealing the 

privileged or protected information itself. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). “Formally claiming a 

privilege should involve specifying which information and documents are privileged and for

what reasons, especially when the nature of the information or documents does not reveal an 

obviously privileged matter.” Paulsen v. Case Corp., 168 F.R.D. 285, 289 (C.D. Cal. 1996)

Case 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB Document 82 Filed 11/03/15 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

27

28

6

(citing Kerr v. United States District Court, Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 192, 198 

(9th Cir.1975)). 

In order to assist a court in determining a claim of privilege, a detailed privilege log may 

be required in conjunction with evidentiary submissions to fill any factual gaps. United States v. 

Construction Products Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 

927 (1996); see also, Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485, *4 (E.D. Cal. 2007), recon. denied, 

2007 WL 841696. With respect to each document as to which a privilege is claimed, the person 

claiming the privilege should include in the privilege log the document’s general nature and 

description, including its date, the identity and position of the author, and the identity and 

position of all addressees and recipients; the present location of the document; and the specific 

reasons it was withheld, including the privilege invoked and the grounds therefor. Allen

(citations omitted).

A detailed privilege log allows for a case-specific and fact-specific balancing of the 

interests of law enforcement, privacy interests of police officers or citizens, interests of civil 

rights plaintiffs, policies that inform the laws, and the needs of the judicial process. Kelly v. City 

of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 667-69 (N.D. Cal. 1987). The privilege log also must: (1) show 

that the agency generated or collected the information and maintained its confidentiality; (2) 

show that the declarant reviewed the material personally; (3) identify a specific governmental or 

privacy interest that would be threatened by disclosure to plaintiff; (4) describe how disclosure, 

subject to a carefully crafted protective order, would create a substantial risk of harm to 

significant governmental or privacy interests; and (5) assess the extent of the harm that would 

result from disclosure. Id. at 670.

Defendant has not demonstrated that any of the information requested is entitled to a 

privilege asserted in this action. Accordingly, Defendant shall be ordered to provide 

supplemental discovery responses pertaining to prior complaints of excessive force made against 

Defendant Pelayo.

D. In Camera Review

Finally, Defendant seeks in camera review of any documents which the Court orders 

Case 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB Document 82 Filed 11/03/15 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

27

28

7

disclosed to allow for redaction of addresses, dates of birth, financial information, etc. that need 

not be disclosed. Plaintiff agreed that Defendant may redact such identifying information in 

making the required disclosures. Therefore, the Court finds that an in camera review of the 

documents produced is not necessary and Defendant shall produce responsive documents with 

personal information redacted. 

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days from 

the date of service of this order, Defendant shall serve supplemental discovery responses 

pertaining to prior complaints of excessive force made against Defendant Pelayo.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB Document 82 Filed 11/03/15 Page 7 of 7