Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00265/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00265-3/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

JOSHUA D. BRIGGS,

Plaintiff,

v.

OREAN YI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Before the Court at Docket 49 is Plaintiff Joshua Briggs’ Motion to Compel 

Production of Documents. Defendants Orean Yi and the Municipality of Anchorage 

filed a response in opposition at Docket 54, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the 

motion at Docket 55, and Defendants filed a supplemental response in opposition 

at Docket 56. In an order filed at Docket 68, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to 

strike the supplemental response.

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond to Request for 

Production Nos. 2, 3, and 5, each of which is addressed in this order. 

1. Request for Production No. 2.

Plaintiff asked that the Municipality produce:

All documents and communications that mention or discuss Joshua 

Briggs, including but not limited to all documents and communications 

within the Anchorage Police Department, within the Municipal 

Prosecutor’s office, communications between the Anchorage Police 

Department and Municipal Prosecutor’s office, and communications 

Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 70 Filed 07/27/23 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.

Order re Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Page 2 of 4

between any other Municipal departments, agencies, subdivisions, and 

offices.

Defendants produced six emails and provided a privilege log that lists five 

additional emails withheld under claims of attorney-client and attorney workproduct privilege. A review of the privilege log indicates that these communications 

by municipal prosecutors and their staff about the criminal case are protected 

work-product and that protection was not waived by the filing of the Declaration of 

Monica Elkinton (Docket 23-1). Stating that a case was dismissed for the 

convenience of the prosecutor does not constitute a waiver of the work-product

privilege with respect to interoffice communications among prosecutors and their 

staff. Accordingly, the motion to compel production of RFP No. 2 is DENIED. 

2. Request for Production No. 3

Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 3 is as follows:

Please produce all documents and communications, including but not 

limited to police reports, court filings, memoranda, and summaries that 

relate to each and every one of the 258 cases “referred by the police for 

violations of AMC 8.30.120(A)(2)” [Docket 23-1, p. 4] since 2018.

As noted in Defendants’ supplemental response and this Court’s order on 

the motion to strike, Defendants have produced a spreadsheet identifying each of 

the 258 cases referred to in the Elkinton Declaration at Docket 56-1. And Plaintiff 

has raised a viable Monell theory that the Municipality has made these arrests for 

reasons other than to secure criminal convictions for these offenses. Therefore, 

the Court finds that in addition to what Defendants have already produced in 

Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 70 Filed 07/27/23 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.

Order re Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Page 3 of 4

response to this request, Defendants shall provide all police reports for each of the 

258 cases to Plaintiff. No additional discovery need be produced in response to 

this request for production, as the court filings are publicly accessible to Plaintiff

and with regard to any other documents related to these cases, ordering such 

documents to be produced would not be proportionate to the needs of the case. 

Defendants may, at their option, redact the information that is privacy protected by 

Rule 5.2, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before providing the police reports to 

Plaintiff. Therefore, the motion to compel is GRANTED in part as to Request No. 

3. 

3. Request for Production No. 5

Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 5 reads:

Please produce all documents and communications between the 

Municipality of Anchorage, including the Anchorage Police Department 

Employees Association that mention or discuss body worn cameras.

Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that the discussions regarding the use 

of body cameras by the Anchorage Police Department are relevant to this case. 

And if relevant, the Court does not find the discovery sought to be proportional to 

the needs of the case, as any relevance the information might have in resolving 

the issues in this case appears to be of quite a low magnitude, while the burden of 

producing this information would outweigh any likely benefit it might have. 

Therefore, the motion to compel as to Request for Production No. 5 is DENIED. 

Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 70 Filed 07/27/23 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.

Order re Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Page 4 of 4

In light of the foregoing, the motion at Docket 49 is GRANTED. Defendants 

shall produce to Plaintiff the police reports identified in this order within 21 days of 

the date of this order. 

DATED this 27th day of July 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 70 Filed 07/27/23 Page 4 of 4