Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03340/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03340-4/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

C-06-3340 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 3

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANDACE LEE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 06-3340 SBA (JL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL

DISCOVERY

Introduction

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Saundra

Brown Armstrong) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The district

court issued an order (Docket # 92) referring discovery disputes to this Court for resolution.

Specifically, the following issues:

"Lee contends that the defendants have failed to produce portions of transcripts,

have failed to produce a number of individual defendants for deposition, have

produced only two minutes of a 911 tape, and have failed to produce police training

policies and procedures." (Order at 1:19-22)

This Court ordered the parties to meet and confer, to attempt to resolve their

dispute, to file a joint statement to the Court if they were unable to resolve their dispute and

to file separate statements if they were unable to file a joijnt statement. The parties were

unable to meet and confer in person because Plaintiff Candace Lee was in Houston, Texas

Case 4:06-cv-03340-SBA Document 117 Filed 06/22/07 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

C-06-3340 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 3

and was not able to return within the time frame of the Court’s order. The parties filed

separate statements (Docket #s 115 and 116).

Background

This lawsuit arises from the arrest of Plaintiff and her husband on May 2, 2005 for

violation of Penal Code section 273.5 (domestic violence) and 148a (obstruction of a police

officer) at their residence in Redwood City (Complaint at ¶12). Plaintiff alleges that Officers

Smith and Feeney did not have probable cause to arrest her for domestic violence and that

they used excessive force. Id. She filed this action on May 19, 2006, alleging violation of 42

U.S.C. §1983 and state law causes of action. Id.

Defendants claim that Plaintiff has a long history of suing Redwood City and its

employees, that San Mateo County has found her to be a vexatious litigant and that this

district required her to obtain a pre-filing order before proceeding with litigation (req. for

Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss, ¶1, Howard Decl. ¶2 and 3).

Analysis and Conclusion

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to produce portions of transcripts.

Defendants do not respond to this contention. However, Plaintiff, in her statement, does not

address this issue so the Court denies this request as moot.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to produce a number of individual

defendants for deposition. This Court previously ordered Defendants to produce for

deposition Officers Dan Smith and Edward Feeney. Defendants produced the officers on

August 30 and 31, 2006, respectively. Both depositions commenced at 10:00 a.m. and

concluded after 6:00 p.m., giving Plaintiff more than sufficient time to ask questions.

Defendants reject Plaintiff’s claim that they were supposed to produce documents in

conjunction with the depositions. Plaintiff served no requests pursuant to FRCP Rule 34, at

any time in this case. Defense counsel, as part of Defendants’ initial disclosure pursuant to

FRCP Rule 26, provided to Plaintiffs, prior to the officers’ deposition, 84 pages of material,

including CDs of photographs, Plaintiff’s 911 call and associated radio traffic, the domestic

Case 4:06-cv-03340-SBA Document 117 Filed 06/22/07 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

C-06-3340 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 3

violence report and portions of the officers’ personnel records. The request for additional

documents is denied.

Plaintiff asks the Court to order additional depositions, “including but not limited to

Ex-Police Chief Carlos G. Bolanos, Ex-Captain Scott Warner, and Supervisor Officer

Anderson, etc. “ (Pltf Statement at 2:13-15) Defendants previously objected to the

depositions of all other City officials, since they did not have any personal involvement in

the arrest of Plaintiff on May 2, 2005 and their deposition testimony would have no

relevance to the officers’ anticipated motion for summary judgment on the issue of qualified

immunity. This Court found no good cause for expedited deposition of Defendants who

were not directly involved in Plaintiff’s arrest and denied that part of Plaintiff’s counter

motion. Defendants ask the Court to deny this request, since Plaintiff fails to justify these

depositions and in fact has not noticed any depositions prior to the March 7, 2007 discovery

cut-off. Plaintiff’s failure to notice depositions for conclusion prior to the cut-off precludes

further depositions in this case. This request is denied.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have produced only two minutes of a 911 tape,

and have failed to produce police training policies and procedures. Defendants respond

that they have produced the complete copy of Plaintiff’s 911 call, concluding with the 911

call taker advising Plaintiff that officers were being sent to her apartment in response. This

request is denied. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs claim under Monell by its order

issued November 13, 2006 (Docket # 44) at 7:21-23. Therefore, police training and

procedures are irrelevant. This request is denied.

For all the above reasons Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 22, 2007

__________________________________

 JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\06-3340\ord-re-115, 116.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-03340-SBA Document 117 Filed 06/22/07 Page 3 of 3