Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00872/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00872-0/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 - 06cv872-L (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARAH DEL MONTE, et al.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv872-L (WMc)

 ORDER

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiffs have filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Complaint,

Docket No. 1.) In accordance with this Court’s Order (Docket No. 14) defendants submitted to the

Court for in camera review the personnel records of defendant Deputy B. Stevens and Sergeant R.

Webb. The Court has reviewed the documents in camera and for the reasons set forth below finds

none of the documents subject to disclosure. 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery of material that

is (1) “not privileged” and (2) relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.”

F.R.C.P. 26(b)(1). Moreover, “[t]he information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the

information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ov admissible

evidence.” Id. 

A relevant matter is “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other

matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162

F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal.1995)(quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351

Case 3:06-cv-00872-L-WMC Document 21 Filed 08/21/07 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

27

28

- 2 - 06cv872-L (WMc)

(1978).) Items typically found in personnel files, such as evaluations and records concerning

training, conduct and performance, may be relevant on the issues of credibility, notice to the

employer, ratification by the employer, motive of the officers and malicious intent. See Soto v.

City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (citing Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227, 229

(S.D.Cal. 1993)). 

After conducting an in camera review of the documents submitted by defendants, the Court

finds none of the documents relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

Therefore, the defendants shall not be required to produce these documents as they do not involve

false arrest or improper detention, excessive force, nor could they reasonably lead to other matters

at issue in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 21, 2007

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

cc: Honorable Thomas Whelan

 U.S. District Court

All Counsel and Parties of Record

Case 3:06-cv-00872-L-WMC Document 21 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 2