Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00051/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00051-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ROLINZO FLOWERS, ) 

 )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. )

 )

COUNTY OF FRESNO, FRESNO )

COUNTY SHERIFF MARGARET )

MIMS, FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF )

DEPUTY RYAN HUSHAW, DEPUTY )

DANIEL BUIE, DEPUTY RANDALL )

SWINEY, SHERIFF SERGEANT KEVIN )

SMITH, SHERIFF SARGENT ARLEY )

TERRANCE, SHERIFF SARGENT ) 

KATHY CARREIRO, SHERIFF )

SARGENT JOHN GOLDEN, SHERIFF )

DETECTIVE ROBERT BUENTOSTRO, )

and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, )

 )

Defendants. )

 )

1:09-cv-00051 LJO GSA

ORDER DENYING AMENDED MOTION

TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Document 20)

 On January 20, 2009, Defendants filed an Amended Motion to Compel that was scheduled

for a hearing on February 19, 2010. On February 16, 2010, this Court issued a minute order

indicating that the hearing date had been vacated because the parties had not filed a joint

statement re: discovery disagreements pursuant to Local Rule 251(a) and (c). On February 17,

2010, Defendants filed a declaration stating that a joint statement re: discovery disputes was not

necessary because Defendants were seeking an order compelling the production of Plaintiff’s

personnel records from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department and the City of Kingsburg

Police Department. Neither of these law enforcement agencies are parties to this action. 

1

Case 1:09-cv-00051-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 02/19/10 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

In the Amended Motion to Compel, Defendants argues that these records are relevant

because Plaintiff, a former law enforcement officer, brought this civil rights action after he was

allegedly unlawfully arrested by Defendants in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint

alleges Plaintiff suffered a loss of future income because of the pending criminal action against

him. In addition, Defendants argues that the records are relevant for determining Plaintiff’s

credibility.

The Court issued the minute order because it construed Defendant’s Amended Motion as a

request that Plaintiff give consent for the release of his personnel records. The Court construed

the motion in this manner because Defendant did not provide any legal authority explaining why

this Court would have jurisdiction to issue an order compelling a nonparty to produce documents.1

Under Federal law, a nonparty may be compelled to produce documents pursuant to the

procedures outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. See, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

34(c). Accordingly, Defendant’s Amended Motion to Compel is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. Defendants may submit a new motion, however, any motion shall explain why

Defendants should not be required to follow the provisions under Rule 45 to obtain the requested

files. This motion shall also provide legal authority for the proposition that this Court may issue

an order compelling a nonparty to this action to produce records when the procedures in Rule 45

are not implemented.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 19, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court recognizes that California Evidence Code § 1043 and California Penal Code § 832.5 requires

1

that certain procedures be followed for the release of peace officer personnel records. However, Defendants’

motion did not mention these provisions, nor does the motion address the jurisdictional issue outlined above.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00051-LJO-GSA Document 29 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 2