Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00882/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00882-7/pdf.json

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

---

1 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DUWAYNE JACKSON, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

D. PARAMO, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 17CV882-CAB (BLM) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

DISCOVERY 

[ECF Nos. 82 and 90] 

 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s November 26, 2018 motion to compel discovery 

[see ECF No. 90 (“MTC”)] and Defendant O. Navarro’s December 18, 2018 opposition to the 

motion [see ECF No. 93 (“Oppo.”)]. 

RELEVANT BACKGROUND 

On July 14, 2018, Plaintiff propounded his first request for production of documents to 

Defendant Navarro. MTC at 5-9. Defendant responded to the requests on August 16, 2018. 

Id. at 16-23; see also Oppo. at 2. In addition to the written responses and objections, Defendant 

served a privilege log, the declaration of the litigation coordinator at RJ Donovan, and produced 

184 pages. Id. at 12-15, 24-25; see also Oppo. at 2. 

On October 17, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a motion for order compelling discovery that 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 12
2 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

was accepted by the Court on discrepancy on October 31, 2018. See ECF Nos. 81 and 82. 

Plaintiff’s motion argued that Defendant Navarro failed to fully respond to Plaintiff’s Requests 

for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) Nos. 1- 13. ECF No. 82 at 1. Plaintiff attached a copy of 

the RFPs and Defendant Navarro’s responses to the requests. Id. at 13-22. Plaintiff complained 

that Defendant Navarro objected to the RFPs as “irrelevant,” argued that “each item sought by 

the Plaintiff is relevant to the claims and defenses in the case,” and asserted that he is seeking 

grievances and complaints regarding inmate mistreatment by Defendant Navarro. Id. at 1-2. 

The Court’s review of Plaintiff’s motion revealed that the attached RFP responses did not include 

relevancy objections. Id. at 13-22. Moreover, Plaintiff’s argument discussed in detail an “Item 

1” seeking 

any and all grievances; complaints or other documents received by the defendants 

or their agents at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility concerning mistreatment 

of Inmates by defendants Paramo, Romero, Valdovinos, Navarro and any 

memoranda, investigative files or documents created in response to such 

documents since August 2, 2016[,] 

but that was not what was sought in the attached RFP No. 1s. Id. at 2, 13-14 and 21. None of 

the fifteen RFPs attached to the motion requested the types of grievances or complaints that 

Plaintiff stated he was seeking. Id. at 13-22. Given these inconsistencies, and in order to enable 

the Court to properly consider Plaintiff’s request, the Court ordered Plaintiff to refile his motion 

to compel on or before November 27, 2018 (1) clearly identifying each discovery request to 

which Plaintiff is seeking to compel further response, (2) including a copy or verbatim statement 

of each RFP Plaintiff is moving to compel and Defendant Navarro's response to it and, (3) 

explaining in detail, why Plaintiff is seeking the information, how the requested information is 

relevant to the case, and why Defendant Navarro's response is improper or insufficient. ECF 

No. 83 at 2. Defendant Navarro was ordered to file his opposition to the motion on or before 

December 18, 2018. Id. at 3. The parties timely filed their motion and opposition. See MTC 

and Oppo. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 12
3 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

LEGAL STANDARD 

The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is defined as follows: 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant 

to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, 

considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 

controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 

the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to 

be discoverable. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See 

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). District courts also have broad discretion 

to limit discovery to prevent its abuse. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (instructing that courts must 

limit discovery where the party seeking the discovery “has had ample opportunity to obtain the 

information by discovery in the action” or where the proposed discovery is “unreasonably 

cumulative or duplicative,” “obtain[able] from some other source that is more convenient, less 

burdensome, or less expensive,” or where it “is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)”). 

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection 

and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for 

objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Id. at 34(b)(2)(B). The responding party is 

responsible for all items in “the responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” Id. at 

34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or control is not required. Rather, “[a] party may be 

ordered to produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal 

right to obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the 

document.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 619 (N.D. Cal. 1995). “The party seeking 

production of the documents bears the burden of proving that the documents are in the other 

party's possession, custody, or control.” Philippe Charriol Int'l Ltd. v. A’lor Int'l Ltd., 2016 WL 

7634440, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2016) (citing United States v. Int'l Union of Petroleum & 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 12
4 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

Indus. Workers, AFL-CIO, 870 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

DISCUSSION 

 Plaintiff seeks to compel further response from Defendant Navarro to RFPs No. 1-3. MTC. 

Defendant contends that he has fully complied with Plaintiff’s Requests and that Plaintiff’s motion 

should be denied in its entirety. Oppo. 

A. Request for Production No. 1 

Plaintiff seeks to compel further response to RFP No. 1. MTC at 2. RFP No. 1 seeks “all 

documents that pertain verify or suggest for inspection within the served Parties Possession or 

control to measure, survey or copy. “CDCR’s” employee or officer employee, liability insurance 

Policy of Defendant Navarro.” MTC at 6. Defendant responded to RFP No. 1 by stating that the 

“CDCR is self-insured and as such, no responsive documents exist.” Id. at 17. 

Plaintiff argues that the information being sought is relevant to his claim of “vicarious 

liability of the employee wrongful acts necessary incidental to his work” and that Defendant’s 

response is incomplete. Id. at 2. Defendant contends that “[b]y explaining that no responsive 

document exists, Defendant has fully complied with his discovery obligations. Indeed, 

Defendant cannot be ordered to produce documents that do not exist.” Oppo. at 3. Defendant 

Navarro notes that Plaintiff’s only claim against him is for violations of the Eighth Amendment 

and that Plaintiff has not asserted a vicarious liability claim against him. Id. at 3 n.1. 

Defendant has responded that no responsive documents exist. Plaintiff has not provided 

any reason or evidence indicating that this response is untruthful and the Court has no reason 

to believe that Defendant is withholding responsive documents. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion 

to compel further response to RFP No. 1 is DENIED. 

B. Request for Production No. 2 

 Plaintiff seeks to compel further response to RFP No. 2. MTC at 2. RFP No. 2 seeks “all 

documents that verify, pertain or measure to inspect or copy what CDCR’s Policy on the 

controlled use of force non lethal [sic] weapons.” Id. at 6. Defendant responded to RFP No. 2 

stating 

Defendant objects to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous in 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 12
5 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

its request for "all documents" that "verify, pertain or measure." Further, to the 

extent it seeks documents that "pertain" to policies, it includes documents 

protected by the attorney client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. 

Without waiving these objections, defendant responds as follows: CDCR's policy 

on the controlled use of force involving non-lethal weapons is contained in Title 15 

which is publicly available. 

Id. at 17. 

Plaintiff argues that the information being sought is “relevant to the claim cause of action” 

and that Defendant provided an evasive answer and withheld the information for policy reasons. 

Id. at 2-3. Defendant contends that “no further disclosure can be compelled because Defendant 

has fully responded and there are no additional documents to produce.” Oppo. at 4. Defendant 

also contends that since Plaintiff has access to Title 15, he does not need to produce Title 15 

and that Plaintiff has failed to establish why Defendant’s response is inadequate or that the 

privilege objection is unjustified. Id. at 4 n.3. 

Plaintiff’s request as written is overbroad and seeks irrelevant documents and potentially 

privileged information. Plaintiff “bears the burden of demonstrating why [Defendant’s] 

objections are not justified.” Burnett v. Sedillo, 2018 WL 4923519, at *2 (E. D. Cal. Oct. 10, 

2018) (citing Grabek v. Dickinson, 2012 WL 113799, at *1 (E. D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012) and Ellis v. 

Cambra, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E. D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008)). Plaintiff has not done so. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to the additional documents described in his request. 

However, the Court finds that Defendant’s response is insufficient as Tile 15 of the United States 

Code is voluminous and contains many provisions inapplicable to Plaintiff’s RFP. Defendant 

Navarro therefore, must supplement his response by providing the specific sections of Title 15 

that contain the CDCR policy on “the controlled use of force non lethal [sic] weapons.” MTC at 

6; see also Oppo. at 3. In addition, if Defendant Navarro has possession, custody, or control 

of, or a legal right to obtain, any relevant policies governing the use of non-lethal force or 

weapons, he must produce them. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to 

Request No. 2 is GRANTED IN PART. 

/// 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 12
6 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

C. Request for Production No. 3 

Plaintiff seeks to compel further response to RFP No. 3. MTC at 3. RFP No. 3 seeks “all 

documents that relate or pertain to CDCR Incident Reports of the Plaintiff on the dates of August 

2, 2016 and January 16, 2017 within the Parties Possession or control to inspect, measure, 

survey or copy.” Id. at 6. Defendant responded to RFP No. 3 stating 

Defendant objects to this request on the ground that it is overly broad in its request 

for "all documents that relate or pertain to" various Incident reports and on the 

ground that by including the phrase "relate or pertain to" Incident reports, the 

request seeks documents protected by the attorney client privilege and the 

attorney work product doctrine. Without waiving these objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Defendant hereby produces the August 2, 2016 Incident 

Report, No. RJD-C14-16-08-0393Al, and the January 16, 2017 Incident Report, 

No. RJD-CYD-17-01-0018Al. 

Id. at 17. 

Plaintiff argues that the information being sought is relevant to his August 2, 2016 and 

January 16, 2017 incident reports which are inconclusive and do not contain CDCR forms 3010-

A, 3011 A, 3012 A, 3034 A and 3036 A, which are being improperly withheld by Defendant. Id. 

at 3. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has again failed to meet his burden of establishing the 

inadequacy of Defendant’s responses. Oppo. at 5. Defendant further contends that the 

documents Plaintiff seeks are beyond the scope of the demand as he produced the requested 

incident reports and the five CDCR forms that Plaintiff mentions are “not Incident Reports nor 

are they part of the Incident Reports” and, therefore, not responsive the RFP No. 3. Id. at 6. 

Defendant notes that there are no CDCR 3034 or 3036 forms related to the August 2, 2016 

incident report. Id. at 6 n.5. Defendant further notes that even if the CDCR forms were 

responsive to the request, they would be protected by the Official Information Privilege. Id. at 

6. Defendant argues that he did not assert the Official Information Privilege in response to 

Request No. 3 because “the request did not solicit such documents, and as such the privilege 

does not apply.” Id. at 6 n.6. 

As an initial matter, Defendant’s contention that the forms are outside of the scope of 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 12
7 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

Plaintiff’s demand is unpersuasive. Plaintiff requested all documents that relate to the January 

and August Incident Reports, not only the reports themselves. Oppo. at 6; see also MTC at 3. 

While Defendant argues that the requested forms are “part of the Manager’s Review/Use of 

Force Critique Package” and not an Incident Report or part of an Incident Report, Defendant’s 

argument that the forms are nonresponsive is defeated by the declaration of Associate Warden 

J. Juarez. Associate Warden Juarez declares that a Use of Force Critique Package “typically 

includes a Crime Incident Report; inmate disciplinary rule violation reports; information about 

the injuries sustained by officers, inmates, and prison staff; the identity of other officers whose 

statements appear in the report; and the reviewing officials’ assessment of the use of force.” 

MTC at 14. As such, there is sufficient evidence that forms relating or pertaining to the incident 

reports were not produced. Plaintiff therefore has satisfied his burden of establishing why 

Defendant’s response to RFP No. 3 may be inadequate. 

Defendant contends that even if the requested forms were responsive to Plaintiff’s RFP, 

they are protected by the Official Information Privilege. “Federal common law recognizes a 

qualified privilege for official information.” Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 

(9th Cir. 1990) (citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct. for N.D. Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 198 (9th 

Cir.1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)). The party asserting the 

privilege has the initial burden of proving the applicability of the privilege. See Kelly v. City of 

San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 669–71 (N.D.Cal.1987); see also Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 

F.R.D. 227, 230 (S.D.Cal.1993) (“Through this opinion, this court is hereby joining the Northern 

District's and Central District's procedures outlined in Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 

(N.D.Cal.1987) and Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D.Cal.1992) for invoking the official 

information privilege”); Stewart v. City of San Diego, 2010 WL 4909630, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 2010) 

(applying Kelly). A party seeking to invoke the official information privilege in response to a 

discovery request must serve a timely discovery response specifically identifying the official 

information privilege as a basis for its objection. Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 669. The objection must 

be accompanied by a declaration or affidavit “from a responsible official within the agency who 

has personal knowledge of the principal matters to be attested to in the affidavit or declaration.” 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 12
8 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

Id. The affidavit or declaration must include: 

(1) an affirmation that the agency generated or collected the material in issue and 

has in fact maintained its confidentiality (if the agency has shared some or all of 

the material with other governmental agencies it must disclose their identity and 

describe the circumstances surrounding the disclosure, including steps taken to 

assure preservation of the confidentiality of the material), (2) a statement that the 

official has personally reviewed the material in question, (3) a specific identification 

of the governmental or privacy interests that would be threatened by disclosure of 

the material to plaintiff and/or his lawyer, (4) a description of how disclosure 

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

harm to significant governmental or privacy interests, (5) and a projection of how 

much harm would be done to the threatened interests if the disclosure were made. 

Id. at 670. “If the non-disclosing party does not meet this initial burden of establishing cause 

to apply the privilege, the court must order disclosure of the documents; if the party meets this 

initial burden, the court generally conducts an in camera review of the material and balance 

each party's interests.” Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 605 (S.D. Cal. 2012). 

The balance test requires that “courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure 

against the potential disadvantages.” Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-34. The Kelly court provided 

a non-exhaustive list of factors (taken from Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 

1973)) that may be considered when engaging in this weighing process: (1) the extent to which 

disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from giving the 

government information; (2) the impact upon persons who have given information of having 

their identities disclosed; (3) the degree to which government self-evaluation and consequent 

program improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is factual 

data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential 

defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the 

incident in question; (6) whether the police investigation has been completed; (7) whether any 

intradepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8) 

whether the plaintiff's suit is non-frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the 

information sought is available through other discovery or from other sources; and (10) the 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 12
9 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

importance of the information sought to the plaintiff's case. Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 663. In making 

this determination, courts must conduct “a situation specific analysis of the factors made 

relevant by the request in issue and the objection to it.” Id. In civil rights cases against police 

departments, the balancing test should be “moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure.” 

Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (quoting Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 661). 

Defendant states that the requested forms are “part of the Manager’s Review/Use of 

Force Critique Package prepared by the Institutional Executive Review Committee (“IERC”)” and 

should not be produced as they are protected by the Official Information Privilege. Oppo. at 6. 

The Court is not familiar with the identified forms and Defendant did not provide them. However, 

Defendant has provided a declaration from Associate Warden J. Juarez regarding these 

documents.1 The declaration states that Associate Warden J. Juarez is familiar with the “CDCR’s 

use-of-force policies, procedures, reviews of staff use of force, and the accompanying records 

generated,” has personal knowledge of the matters discussed in the declaration, and personally 

reviewed the Use of Force Critique Packages at issue. MTC at 12, 14. The declaration also 

states that the CDCR has maintained the confidentiality of its use-of-force policies and 

procedures and that Use of Force Critique Packages are produced with the expectation that they 

will remain confidential. Id. at 13-14. The declaration further states that the CDCR’s interest in 

                                                      

1 Associate Warden J. Juarez declares that the Use of Force Critique Package is generated when 

force is used by an officer and typically includes a 

Crime Incident Report; inmate disciplinary rule violation reports; information about 

the injuries sustained by officers, inmates, and prison staff; the identity of other 

officers whose statements appear in the report; and the reviewing officials’ 

assessment of the use of force. 

MTC at 14. Defendant already has provided Plaintiff with the two Crime Incident Reports. Based 

on its experience with these types of cases, the Court assumes that Plaintiff also has been 

provided with or has the ability to obtain disciplinary rules violation reports concerning his own 

violations. Plaintiff also is aware of the injuries that he sustained as a result of the August 2016 

and July 2017 incidents. Accordingly, while the Court is not familiar with the specific forms 

being requested, it appears that the Official Information Privilege does not apply to the entire 

Manager’s Review/Use of Force Critique Package. 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 12
10 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

obtaining the opinions, assessments, and statements of officers regarding force used by other 

officers and the overall efficacy of the review process could be compromised by the disclosure 

of the Packages to Plaintiff. Id. at 14. In addition, Associate Warden J. Juarez declares that 

there is a safety interest that would be compromised with disclosure because once inmates are 

knowledgeable about an institution’s use-of-force policies and procedures, they will be able to 

strategically plan attacks to maximize success by knowing the response they will get from 

officers. Id. at 13. Finally, the declaration states that inmate privacy interests would be 

threatened with disclosure as inmates would be less likely to cooperate with investigations so 

as to not be labeled a “snitch” or be seen as crossing another inmate. Id. at 14-15. The 

declaration notes that even with a protective order governing the disclosure, there would be a 

substantial risk of harm because inmates who are not subject to a protective order could obtain 

the confidential information allowing that information to be disseminated throughout the prison. 

Id. at 15. Finally, Associate Warden J. Juarez declared that “[g]iven that inmate Jackson is 

currently serving a long prison term sentence, it is my belief that any civil sanction associated 

with violating a protective order would be an ineffective deterrent.” Id. 

The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the threshold requirement for application of 

the Official Information Privilege. Accordingly, the Court will perform an in camera review of 

the requested documents so that the Court may engage in a balancing analysis to determine 

whether the Official Information Privilege applies. Defendant must lodge a copy of forms 3010-

A, 3011 A, 3012 A, 3034 A and 3036 A related to the January 16, 2017 Incident Report and a 

copy of forms 3010-A, 3011 A, and 3012 A related to the August 2, 2016 Incident with the Court 

for in camera review on or before February 1, 2019. Defendant also must identify which 

portions of the Use of Force Critique Package already have been provided to Plaintiff and which 

portions Defendant believes are protected by the Official Information Privilege. The Court will 

then review the documents and issue an order regarding Plaintiff’s motion to compel further 

response to RFP No. 3. 

D. Personnel Records 

Without tying it to a specific Request for Production, Plaintiff states in his motion that he 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 12
11 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

“seeks documents pertaining to particular kinds of Complaints and allegations about the 

defendants. Whether or not they are part of ‘Personnel records.’ He does not seek other matters 

that may be in the ‘Personnel Records.’ Such as medical data or information about their records 

of lateness, leaves, vacations. Etc.” MTC at 3. Plaintiff argues that such complaints are relevant 

to his claim of supervisory liability against Defendant G. Stratton because despite the fact that 

complaints have been made against at least five of the six Defendants, no action has been taken 

against them. Id. 

Defendant contends that the RFPs do not seek personnel records and that he did not 

assert the relevancy objection identified by Plaintiff. Defendant speculates that “Plaintiff seems 

to be addressing a discovery request that he propounded to a different defendant and that 

defendant’s response to that request.” Oppo. at 5-6 n.4. Accordingly, Defendant contends that 

Plaintiff’s argument should be disregarded.2 Id. 

RFPs 1-3 do not seek use of force complaints against Defendant Navarro or any other 

officers. Moreover, Plaintiff’s justification for the relevancy of the complaints is without merit as 

G. Stratton is not a defendant in this case. Because Plaintiff did not request use of force 

complaints in his RFPs, his informal request in the body of his motion to compel is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to Requests for Production Nos. 1 is 

DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to RFP No. 2 is GRANTED IN PART. 

Defendant Navarro, must supplement his response to RFP No. 2 in accordance with this order 

on or before February 1, 2019. 

Defendant Navarro must lodge the documents responsive to RFP No. 3 with Judge Major’s 

Chambers on or before February 1, 2019. An order regarding Plaintiff’s motion to compel RFP 

No. 3 will follow. 

                                                      

2 G. Stratton is not named as a Defendant in this case. See Docket; see also ECF No. 37 

(Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint). 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 12
12 

17cv882-CAB (BLM) 

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

Plaintiff’s request for officer complaints is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 1/17/2019 

Case 3:17-cv-00882-CAB-BLM Document 100 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 12