Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03365/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03365-5/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID DAVIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CLEARLAKE POLICE DEPT.,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-03365 EDL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

On April 7, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of documents. The matter

was fully briefed, and the Court held a hearing on May 13, 2008 during which the Court heard

argument from both parties. As stated at the hearing and in this order, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted

in part. 

Plaintiffs seek further responses to their requests for production of documents numbers four,

five and six seeking documents, video from patrol cars and audio recordings from officers on certain

dates relating to traffic citations given to Plaintiffs. In a declaration submitted in opposition to

Plaintiffs’ motion and at the hearing, Defendant’s counsel stated that the City had already produced

responsive materials or stated that it did not have responsive documents. See Larsen Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. C

at 2-3, Ex. D. Also at the hearing, however, Defendant stated that a personal (not official) tape

recording may have been made by an officer which may still exist, which Defendant has searched

for but so far has been unable to locate. Defendant shall continue to search for that personal

recording. Defendant shall also provide to Plaintiffs a declaration(s) from the person most

knowledgeable about the search done for responsive documents and video or audio recordings and

Case 3:07-cv-03365-EDL Document 54 Filed 05/13/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

stating that all documents and recordings have been produced, if that is the case. In addition,

Plaintiffs may propound a request for admission regarding production of recordings. 

Plaintiffs stated at the hearing that they also have an audio recording of one of their

interactions with police officers. Plaintiffs shall produce a copy of that recording to Defendant, but

given their stated concerns that any recording (whether theirs or the officer’s that Defendant says is

missing) may be altered, the parties shall file a stipulation with the Court acknowledging the date on

which Plaintiffs provide the tape to Defendant. 

Plaintiffs also seek further responses to requests for production seven, ten, eleven, twelve

and thirteen regarding dispatch records. In its opposition, Defendant stated that it had not previously

understood Plaintiffs’ request for dispatch records, but that it now understand “dispatch record” to

mean any contemporaneous records of officers’ contact with the police department or any other

agencies while the traffic stops were taking place. See Opp. at 3. Accordingly, Defendant stated

that their initial disclosures contain all such responsive documents, specifically, Bates numbers

CLE0001-CLE0017. Larsen Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. A. Plaintiffs state that those Bates stamped documents,

however, only cover August 3, 2006, whereas the requests for production sought records from

additional dates. Therefore, Defendant shall identify specific Bates stamp numbers and

corresponding dates for each dispatch document that has already been produced and shall search for

and produce any further responsive dispatch documents. Defendant shall provide to Plaintiffs a

declaration(s) from the person most knowledgeable about the search done for responsive dispatch

documents and stating that all documents have been produced, if that is the case. In addition,

Plaintiffs may propound a request for admission regarding production of dispatch documents.

In request for production fourteen, Plaintiffs seek documents, specifically recordings, from

an August 3, 2006 complaint by Plaintiffs to Ronald Larsen. Although Defendant argued in its

opposition that it has produced all responsive documents and recordings, Plaintiffs dispute that. 

Accordingly, if Defendants have no further responsive documents, they shall provide to Plaintiffs a

declaration(s) from the person most knowledgeable about the search done for responsive documents

and stating that all documents have been produced, if that is the case. In addition, Plaintiffs may

propound a request for admission regarding production of documents regarding this complaint.

Case 3:07-cv-03365-EDL Document 54 Filed 05/13/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiffs also seek details of internal investigation #IA 01-12-07/90 (request for production

eighteen) as well as complete service records for Officers Timothy Celli, Timothy Hobbs, T.W.

Miller and Officer Hardisty (requests for production twenty-one, twenty-three, twenty-four and

twenty-six). Defendants shall search for and produce any documents responsive to request for

production eighteen. If Defendants have no further responsive documents, they shall provide to

Plaintiffs a declaration(s) from the person most knowledgeable about the search done for documents

and stating that all documents have been produced, if that is the case. With respect to the personnel

files, the Court has agreed to examine in camera the excerpts from officers’ personnel files that were

withheld on the privilege log. The Court will review the excerpts from the files to determine if the

documents are discoverable in this case. The Court will issue a separate order regarding those

documents. Any production of personnel records would be subject to a protective order that the

information shall only be used for this litigation. After the Court rules on the results of its in camera

review, Defendant shall file a proposed protective order. 

At the hearing, Defendant noted that Plaintiffs had served interrogatories on police officers

who are not parties in this matter. Interrogatories may only be served on parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

33. Defendant stated that it would provide responses by the City of Clearlake based on its

knowledge of the facts of this case, which is an acceptable response to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. If

Plaintiffs believe that Defendant’s responses are inadequate, they may file a motion to compel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03365-EDL Document 54 Filed 05/13/08 Page 3 of 3