Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_99-cv-20022/USCOURTS-cand-5_99-cv-20022-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

Defendants’ Surreply to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication 355919 

C99-20022 JF (PT) EXHIBIT A 

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 

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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

THE SAN JOSE CHARTER OF THE 

HELLS ANGELS MOTORCYCLE CLUB, 

et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

NO. C99-20022 JF (PT) 

DEFENDANTS ROBERT CARNEY, 

PETER DECENA, MICHAEL KNOX, 

WILLIAM MANION, PAUL MESSIER, 

DAVE NEWMAN AND RAFAEL 

NIEVES’ SURREPLY TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Date: May 19, 2006 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: 3 

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel 

INTRODUCTION

 This limited Surreply is necessitated by the recent production to Plaintiffs of a 

videotape entitled “Handling Vicious Dogs,” and the use of such evidence in Plaintiffs’ 

Reply Brief. The videotape was produced to avoid allegations of wrongful withholding of 

documents and in the spirit of openness that accompanies civil discovery procedures. 

The videotape was not requested in Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and does not resolve 

the issues of fact that preclude granting of summary adjudication in this case. 

RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (#88625)

NORA FRIMANN, Chief Trial Attorney (#93249) 

MICHAEL R. GROVES, Senior Deputy City Attorney (#85620) 

CLIFFORD S. GREENBERG, Senior Deputy City Attorney (#122612) 

Office of the City Attorney 

200 East Santa Clara Street 

San Jose, California 95113-1905 

Telephone: (408) 535-1900 

Facsimile: (408) 998-3131 

Email: cao.main@sanjoseca.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ and SAN JOSÉ POLICE OFFICERS 

Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 288 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 1 of 6
 Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 294 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 6
2 

Defendants’ Surreply to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication 355919 

C99-20022 JF (PT) EXHIBIT A 

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 

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 

BACKGROUND

 As documented in the letter Michael Groves sent to Plaintiffs’ attorney on May 1, 

2006 (see Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Reply Brief) Defense counsel came into possession of a 

videotape entitled “Handling Vicious Dogs” several weeks ago. Another attorney in the 

City Attorney’s Office, who provides advice and counseling to Animal Control Services, 

found the tape in her office while going through materials packed during the move to the 

New City Hall last year. Upon watching the tape, Defense attorneys realized that it 

contained information about methods of subduing vicious dogs aside from the use of 

firearms. The tape does not come close to dealing with a situation like the ones at issue 

in this case, but does contain material that Defense counsel assumed Plaintiffs’ counsel 

would be interested in. 

 Defense counsel made an extensive inquiry into the source of the tape. Mr. 

Groves determined that the tape was created in 1993 by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 

Department and was downloaded by the San Jose Police Department in 1994 from a 

satellite feed supplied by the Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) organization. 

Along with many other such tapes of downloaded programs, the videotape was stored on 

a shelf in the Video Unit and never distributed or used to train officers. Indeed, none of 

the officers involved in the subject set of searches had seen or heard of the tape, and 

there are no records of the tape ever being used in any San Jose Police Department 

training. 

 After reviewing Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and examining Rule 26 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, Defense counsel determined that Defendants had no obligation 

to turn over the videotape to Plaintiffs. However, Defendants’ counsel also suspected 

that Plaintiffs’ counsel would contend that the tape should be produced. In order to avoid 

the prospect of later accusations, and in the spirit of full disclosure, Defense counsel 

decided to produce the tape and did so on May 1, 2006. 

// 

// 

Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 288 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 2 of 6
 Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 294 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 6
3 

Defendants’ Surreply to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication 355919 

C99-20022 JF (PT) EXHIBIT A 

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 

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 

ARGUMENT

A. Defendants Had No Duty to Produce the Videotape. 

 Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires production, without a 

discovery request, of “documents ... that the disclosing party may use to support its 

claims or defenses....” Defendants had no duty to produce the videotape pursuant to this 

rule, in that Defendants had no intention of using the videotape to support their claims or 

defenses. 

 Plaintiffs claim in their Reply that they requested the videotape in April 2000. 

(Reply, p. 8.) They also claim that Defense counsel acknowledged that the videotape 

“may have been responsive” to Plaintiffs’ document requests. (Reply, p. 3.) These 

assertions are untrue. 

First, relevant discovery requests are reproduced in Plaintiffs’ Reply brief, at page 

3. The requests call for production of documents, including training material, which 

evidence, or relate to San Jose’s official, or “unofficial,” custom and/or practice regarding 

procedures for handling dogs during the execution of warrants, etc. As stated, the 

investigation into the use, or non-use, of the videotape disclosed that it was never used in 

training and had absolutely no relation to any San Jose custom or practice. Plaintiffs 

could have requested all training materials related to the handling of dogs, which would 

have clearly included this video, but did not do so. Plaintiffs’ request was limited to 

materials that evidenced or related to San Jose’s policies and/or customs. The videotape 

does not evidence or reflect San Jose policy and/or custom.1

Furthermore, Mr. Groves’ letter specifically states that the “tape does not fall into 

any of the categories you requested....” It is unclear why Plaintiffs would say that Mr. 

Groves acknowledged that the tape may be responsive when he actually wrote that it is 

not responsive. 

 

1

 Plaintiffs also requested training materials that “were distributed” to police officers. Since this videotape 

was never distributed, it is not responsive to that request either. 

Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 288 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 3 of 6
 Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 294 Filed 05/18/06 Page 3 of 6
4 

Defendants’ Surreply to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication 355919 

C99-20022 JF (PT) EXHIBIT A 

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 

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 any event, Defendants have produced the tape, soon after it was discovered, 

even though it was not requested. Defendants, upon viewing the tape, realized that 

Plaintiffs would believe it was pertinent to the litigation, and promptly sent it to Plaintiffs, 

notwithstanding the inevitability that it would be used against them. Instead of 

condemning Defense attorneys and threatening sanctions, Plaintiffs should be thankful 

that Defense attorneys have attempted to act fairly, and openly, in this situation. 

B. The Videotape Does Not Resolve the Factual Issues Preventing 

Summary Adjudication. 

In this motion, relying on the authority of the Ninth Circuit opinion in this case, 

Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to judgment on the Fourth Amendment issue, i.e. the 

reasonableness of the shooting of the dogs, based on the undisputed evidence submitted 

in support of the original summary adjudication motion filed by Defendants. Defendants 

assert that those facts, and reasonable inferences derived therefrom, do not amount to 

the establishment of liability. Defendants simply wish to allow the officers to explain why

they had no other alternative plan, under the circumstances of the particular entries 

involved, and Defendants simply wish to allow a jury to determine whether those reasons 

for not considering other alternatives were reasonable. The existence of the produced 

videotape has no bearing on this determination. 

First, none of the officers involved had ever seen the videotape or knew of its 

existence. As evidenced by the declarations supplied in opposition to this motion, the 

officers were trained that there were no viable alternatives to deadly force under the 

circumstances presented to them. The videotape does not change this fact, even if it was 

in the possession of the Department (on a shelf, unviewed). 

Second, the tape contains only general suggestions about using alternative means 

of dealing with dogs, without tailoring such suggestions to any situation similar to those 

involved in this case. The videotape explains that each situation is unique and there is no 

way to mandate any one course of action. From the videotape, it is apparent that the Los 

Angeles Sheriff’s Department had determined that certain alternative measures, such as 

Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 288 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 4 of 6
 Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 294 Filed 05/18/06 Page 4 of 6
5 

Defendants’ Surreply to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication 355919 

C99-20022 JF (PT) EXHIBIT A 

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 

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 

the use of OC (pepper) spray, fire extinguishers and flares, may be useful in minimizing 

risk in situations where it is anticipated that a dog may be encountered.2

 The videotape 

only briefly mentions the execution of warrants and contains no advice whatsoever on 

dealing with situations where dogs occupy an area between the officers and their goal. 

The tape does not explain how to deal with a “high risk” situation, where the occupants of 

the house itself are considered dangerous, in addition to the dogs outside. The tape does 

not deal with situations where time is an important factor. In fact, the emphasis of the 

tape seems to be on limiting a dog’s movements while awaiting arrival of Animal Control, 

for purposes of removing a vicious dog from a scene. The emphasis of the video was on 

dealing with loose dogs, not on ensuring a successful search, which was the goal of the 

Hells Angels’ warrants. The tape does not deal with how to protect a search team from a 

dog attack or how to make sure that a dog, once scared away, does not return to injure 

someone. 

In this case, the officers testified that they did not use other methods of restraining 

the dogs in the particular circumstances of this case. For example, they testified that they 

did not allow a neighbor to attempt to control the dog at the Souza residence. They also 

testified that other methods of controlling dogs, such as the use of pepper spray, were 

available in other circumstances.

3

 At trial, the officers should be allowed to fully explain 

why they chose not to use these alternatives based on the circumstances that confronted 

them. Only fully developed testimony will allow a reasoned analysis of whether the 

officers acted reasonably. 

 

2

 Note that even the suggestions in the tape do not include the use of tranquilizing devices, heavily relied 

upon by Plaintiffs in arguments at the trial and appellate levels. Note also that the only demonstrated use 

of pepper spray, on two pit bulls, was completely unsuccessful, requiring the shooting of one of the dogs. 

3

 Plaintiffs contend that the officers acted contrary to policy by not using pepper spray or corralling the 

dogs. (Reply pp. 8-9.) Plaintiffs’ contention is a misrepresentation of fact. The testimony of the officers 

supplied merely shows that in other situations officers have used pepper spray or other alternatives. (See 

Fernandez testimony, attached as Exhibit E to Reply, “Everything changes your tactics... We’ve tried 

hundreds of ways to deal with dogs.”) There is absolutely no testimony from officers that the alternatives 

could have applied to the instant searches. 

Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 288 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 5 of 6
 Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 294 Filed 05/18/06 Page 5 of 6
6 

Defendants’ Surreply to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication 355919 

C99-20022 JF (PT) EXHIBIT A 

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 

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 short, the existence of the videotape does not eliminate the factual issues 

surrounding a reasonableness assessment for purposes of summary adjudication. The 

tape, and/or testimony relating to alternatives under particular circumstances, might be 

used at trial in an attempt to convince the jury that the actions of the officers were either 

reasonable or unreasonable. Plaintiffs and/or Defendants may introduce expert 

testimony dealing with police practices at the time of the incident. However, neither the 

facts supplied in the original motion nor the recently produced videotape serve to fully 

answer the reasonableness question as a matter of law. 

CONCLUSION

 Plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain a judgment, based only upon the evidence supplied for 

purposes of Defendants’ summary adjudication motion, and the law that resulted, should 

be denied. It must be recalled that Defendants’ motion was largely devoted to the 

concept that no clearly established law put Defendant officers on notice that their conduct 

could violate the constitution. The motion below, and the appeal that followed, centered 

on that issue. Defendants’ argument was rejected by this court and by the Ninth Circuit. 

Now that the case is remanded for purposes of trial, a full hearing is necessary to 

evaluate the actions of the officers. 

DATED: May 12, 2006 RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney 

By: ____________/s/_______________

 CLIFFORD S. GREENBERG 

 Sr. Deputy City Attorney 

 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ and SAN JOSÉ 

POLICE OFFICERS 

Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 288 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 6 of 6
 Case 5:99-cv-20022-JF Document 294 Filed 05/18/06 Page 6 of 6