Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991-23/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REYNALDA MOLINA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VISALIA, et. al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB

ORDER RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

(ECF No. 86)

FIVE DAY DEADLINE

This civil rights action is proceeding on the second amended complaint filed June 20, 

2014, against the City of Visalia, and Officers Adam Collins, Daniel Roberts, and Dirk Alfano 

alleging unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, violations of 

substantive due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and state law claims. The claims 

in this action arise out of an incident in which officers attempted to make a traffic stop which led to a 

high speed chase and resulted in injury to Nicholas Chavez and the deaths of Edwardo Maduena and 

Ruben Molina . (ECF No. 40.)

The parties requested an informal discovery dispute conference. On March 14, 2016, the 

parties filed an informal discovery dispute letter brief describing the instant dispute. An informal 

teleconference was held on March 16, 2016. Counsel Peter Bersin and Jesse French appeared for 

Plaintiffs and counsel Leonard Herr appeared for Defendants. 

The issue currently before the Court concerns the representation of witness Shantel Alvarado. 

Ms. Alvarado was a percipient witness in this action and has been deposed by Defendants on two 

occasions. During her deposition on January 29, 2016, Ms. Alvarado appeared for a deposition 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 88 Filed 03/17/16 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

testifying that she did not have a job, lived with her mother and had no money for counsel. She 

requested to speak with an attorney prior to the deposition; and the parties agreed to postpone the 

deposition. 

Ms. Alvarado subsequently appeared for a deposition on February 4, 2016 and was 

represented by an attorney. Due to Ms. Alvarado’s prior statements regarding her financial status 

and inability to afford representation, Defendants served interrogatories on Plaintiffs asking if 

Plaintiffs’ were providing some benefit, either financial or otherwise, directly or indirectly to Ms. 

Alvarado. 

In response to the interrogatories, Plaintiffs replied, “Objection. The question calls for 

attorney-client privilege communication. Without waiving said objection, Plaintiff, Reynalda 

Molina, has no knowledge of who Mark Coleman, Esq. is.” An addition response stated, 

“Objection. The question calls for attorney-client privileged communication and is compound. 

Without waiving said objections, Plaintiff has no knowledge concerning the subject matter of 

this Interrogatory and based thereon her response is no.”

Defendants contend that an attorney’s knowledge is imputed to his client, no attorneyclient privilege exists here, and Plaintiffs should be required to provide a supplemental response 

as to whether Plaintiffs’ attorneys paid for or provided a benefit to Ms. Alvarado. Plaintiffs 

argue that a party cannot serve an interrogatory on the opposing party’s counsel and Defendants 

could have obtained the desired information from Ms. Alvarado by questioning her about how 

she obtained an attorney during her deposition.

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Federal Procedure provides that “[p]arties may obtain 

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the 

action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of 

discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Clearly whether Plaintiffs’ attorneys are providing a benefit to Ms. Alvarado in this 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 88 Filed 03/17/16 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

action is relevant in assessing her testimony in this action. Further, “[a]n attorney’s knowledge, 

whether actually told to a client or not, is imputed to the client.” McDaniel v. GEICO Gen. Ins. 

Co., 55 F.Supp.3d 1244, 1260 (E.D. Cal. 2014); Lee v. Pep Boys-Manny Moe & Jack of 

California, No. 12-CV-05064-JSC, 2016 WL 324015, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2016); Stueve 

Bros. Farms, LLC v. Berger Kahn, 222 Cal.App.4th 303, 316 (2013) (under general agency 

principles attorney’s knowledge is imputed to client); Ranieri v. Kersenbrock, No. CIV. 10-

00295 JMS, 2011 WL 5520609, at *9 (D. Haw. Nov. 14, 2011) (quoting Restatement (Second) 

of Agency § 9(3) (1958) (“[A client] has notice of a fact if his [attorney] has knowledge of the 

fact, reason to know it or should know it, or has been given a notification of it.”). 

Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the request calls for “a broad swath of information” from 

Plaintiffs’ attorneys. However, Plaintiffs are seeking to discover if Plaintiffs’ were providing 

some benefit, either financial or otherwise, directly or indirectly to Ms. Alvarado. This is not a broad 

far reaching request, but is designed to obtain information relevant to this litigation which may led to 

bias or other pertinent information. 

Defendants’ request to compel a supplemental response to interrogatories is granted. In 

answering the interrogatory request, Plaintiff’s answer must be responsive based upon her actual 

knowledge and the knowledge of her attorney.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s shall file a supplemental 

response to the interrogatory within five days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 88 Filed 03/17/16 Page 3 of 3