Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04016/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04016-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

N. C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-04016-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

AMEND COMPLAINT; ORDER ON

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 37, 41

INTRODUCTION

On June 12, 2018, plaintiff N.C. moved for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Pl.’s 

Mot. for Leave to Amend Complaint (Dkt. No. 37). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the 

motion for leave to amend is appropriate for determination without oral argument and the July 18, 

2018 hearing is VACATED. The parties also filed a joint discovery dispute letter consistent with 

my Standing Order for Civil Cases, which I address below. 

DISCUSSION

I. LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The proposed amended complaint adds four defendants and removes Barbara Coleman as 

Guardian ad Litem. Mot. 1. A court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 15(a). Factors to determine whether leave should be granted include: “(1) bad faith, (2) 

undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether 

plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.” In re W. States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust 

Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 738 (9th Cir. 2013). In the absence of these concerns, there is “a 

presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. 

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

Case 3:17-cv-04016-WHO Document 43 Filed 06/29/18 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants oppose the motion for leave to the extent it adds new defendants, arguing that 

there was bad faith and undue delay. Opp. at 4 (Dkt. No. 42).

1

 Specifically, they contend that 

plaintiff knew the identities of the additional defendants since December 2016, and could have 

included them in the original complaint, but plaintiff instead waited so long to seek leave to amend 

that the hearing on the current motion won’t occur until two weeks before the Settlement 

Conference. Id. In support of the motion for leave, plaintiff explains that documents produced on 

May 10 and June 1, 2018, confirmed that the four additional defendants were present at the scene 

of the 2016 incident and provided necessary details regarding the additional defendants’ roles in 

the incident justifying their being added as named defendants.

While defendants raise valid concerns with the timing of this motion, it does not amount to 

bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice. Given the liberal standard for granting leave and the fact that 

plaintiff has not previously amended the complaint, I GRANT the motion for leave to amend. 

Plaintiff may file the proposed First Amended Complaint within seven days of this Order.

II. DISCOVERY DISPUTE

In the current discovery dispute plaintiff seeks documents related to the four additional 

defendants, and defendants request several amended and completed responses to their first set of 

interrogatories.

A. Plaintiff’s Request for Documents Related to Additional Defendants

Plaintiff argues that because his First Set of Requests for Production sought documents 

related to any officer “involved” in the incident, defendants should be compelled to produce 

documents relating to the four additional defendants they have now added (consistent with the 

documents I ordered defendants to produce in my May 31, 2018 Order). See Order on Discovery 

Disputes (Dkt. No. 33); Second Joint Discovery Dispute Statement at 2 (Dkt. No. 41). Defendants 

oppose, arguing that they should not be required to produce these documents because the 

additional defendants had not been added to the case at the time the discovery letter was filed and 

because of their continued objections as explained in their opposition to the prior discovery 

 

1 Defendants do not object to the removal of Barbara Coleman as the Guardian ad Litem given that 

plaintiff reached the age of majority in October 2017. Oppo. at. 2 n.1.

Case 3:17-cv-04016-WHO Document 43 Filed 06/29/18 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

dispute. However, these defendants have now been added to the case and I rejected defendants’ 

objections in my prior Order. Dkt. No. 33. Therefore, defendants shall produce misconduct 

documents and personnel files for the four additional officer defendants on or before July 6, 2018. 

B. Defendants’ Request for Production

Defendants also seek complete responses to their first set of interrogatories numbers 3, 4, 

5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Defendants complain that plaintiff’s initial 

responses were incomplete and impermissibly referred defendants to previously produced 

documents for the answers. Plaintiff responds that defendants’ request is premature, as he has 

agreed to amend his responses with narrative answers by June 29, 2018. If, after viewing 

plaintiff’s amended responses, defendants still feel the amended answers are deficient, they shall 

file a further joint discovery dispute letter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2018

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-04016-WHO Document 43 Filed 06/29/18 Page 3 of 3