Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01017/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01017-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv1017 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Document 34)

Defendants filed the instant motion to compel production of documents pursuant to 

subpoena on April 21, 2006. The motion was heard on May 26, 2006, before the Honorable

Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Anne Hunter appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. 

James Arendt appeared on behalf of Defendants City of Fresno (“City”) and Fresno Police

Officer Marcus Tafoya (“Officer Tafoya”).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed their civil rights complaint on August 5, 2005, against the City and Officer

Tafoya (collectively “Defendants”). Officer Tafoya is sued individually and in his official

capacity. Plaintiffs’ allegations arise out of their arrests on March 5, 2005. They allege causes of

action for: (1) violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments based on their false arrests

and the unreasonable use of force, including allegations that the City has a policy, pattern,

practice and custom of arresting individuals by using improper means (excessive force), of

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 61 Filed 05/30/06 Page 1 of 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

2

detaining individuals without probable cause, and of condoning or encouraging the

unconstitutional conduct of the officers; (2) assault and battery; (3) false arrest and

imprisonment; and (4) negligence.

On or about February 13, 2006, Defendants served subpoenas to the Fresno County Jail as

to both Plaintiffs requesting the following documents:

Any and all records concerning arrests, convictions, criminal

histories (commonly known as RAP sheet), incarcerations,

bookings, booking photographs, classifications, housing, medical

treatment/evaluations, and any correspondence, memoranda, or

other documentation relative to those records.

Defendants also served subpoenas to the Fresno County Jail Infirmary requesting:

[A]ny and all medical records including, but not limited to,

treatment evaluations, and any correspondence, memoranda, or

other documentation relative to those records . . .

All records from the Infirmary have been produced and therefore are not at issue in this

motion.

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel on April 21, 2006 after Plaintiffs objected to

the referenced subpoena. Plaintiffs argue the jail records are highly sensitive documents

regarding events in plaintiff Gabriel Rodriguez’s life that occurred nearly a decade ago and are

unrelated to the claims and defenses in this case. Plaintiffs do not dispute the relevance of jail

records relating to the March 5-6, 2005 events and have already produced those documents to the

City. 

The parties filed their Joint Statement on May 23, 2006.

DISCUSSION

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the

existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of

any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and

location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter .

. . . The information sought need not be admissible at trial if the

information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. 

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 61 Filed 05/30/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Upon motion of any person responding to a discovery request, and for good cause shown,

the court “may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).

Plaintiffs’ primary argument against production of the documents is that they would not

be admissible at trial. Admissibility is not determinative. Defendants have made a sufficient

showing of the relevance of the documents to their defenses. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a

basis to withhold the documents and therefore they should be produced. The admissibility of the

documents should be dealt with by motions in limine at trial, not discovery. Moreover,

Plaintiffs’ general Rule 26 objections can be addressed by a stipulated protective order which

limits disclosure and use of the documents. The parties have already entered into stipulated

protective orders with regard to documents that the City has marked Confidential and Plaintiffs’

medical information. See Docket Nos. 33, 43 and 56. At the hearing, Defendants’ counsel

agreed to enter into a similar order for the production of the documents at issue in this motion. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to compel production of documents is

GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ objections to the subject subpoena are OVERRULED and the documents

requested shall be produced, pursuant to a stipulated protective order, within 20 days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 30, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 61 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3