Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574-1/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN TENNISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-0574 CW (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL CITY TO

PRODUCE AUDIOTAPES FOR

NONDESTRUCTIVE FORENSIC

TESTING; AND DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

CITY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

AND WITNESSES

(Docket No. 115)

Plaintiff John Tennison has filed a motion to compel, seeking (1) the production of

audiotapes for testing; (2) the production of certain documents; and (3) the production of certain

witnesses. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby

GRANTS the motion to compel the audiotapes for testing but DENIES the motion to compel

production of documents and witnesses as moot.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel Production of Audiotapes for Testing

This discovery dispute concerns two audiotapes (DA 00831 and DA 00838) labeled “Masina

Fauolo 4/23/90” and “M. Fauolo 4/23/90.” In responses to interrogatories, the City stated that the

tapes are inaudible or blank. Mr. Tennison asked the City to produce the tapes for testing to

determine whether the tapes do contain audio data or are in fact blank. The parties could not agree,

however, on what kind of testing would be permitted. More specifically, the parties could not agree

as to whether Mr. Tennison’s expert would be allowed to do magnetic development testing. The

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 159 Filed 05/20/05 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

City argues that such testing is destructive and so should not be allowed. Mr. Tennison argues

otherwise.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) allows a party to serve on the opposing party a request

“to inspect and copy, test, or sample any tangible things which constitute or contain matters within

the scope of Rule 26(b) and which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom

the request is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Rule 34(b) provides that “[t]he request shall specify a

reasonable . . . manner of making the inspection and performing the related acts.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

34(b). “Production for the purposes of destructive testing is included within the scope of [Rule 34].” 

7-34 Moore’s Fed. Prac. -- Civ. § 34.14 (emphasis added); see also Ostrander v. Butler’s

Promotions, Inc., 119 F.R.D. 417, 419 (D. Minn. 1988) (same). 

A court has discretion in deciding whether or not to allow destructive testing to take place. 

See, e.g., Dabney v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 761 F.2d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 1985) (in case

involving a request for destructive testing, noting that a court’s decision to deny or limit discovery

will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion). In deciding whether to permit

destructive testing, the court must balance the interests to be served by the testing -- e.g., is the

testing critical to the requesting party’s case? -- against countervailing considerations, particularly,

the value of the preservation of the evidence to the opposing party. See Ostrander, 119 F.R.D. at

419. “In instances where the entire piece of evidence will be consumed by testing, the balance may

dictate the denial of a request for such testing.” Id. (emphasis added). On the other hand, the

balance may dictate the granting of a request for testing where the party in possession of the evidence

has already tested it. See id.

As a preliminary matter, the Court must address in the instant case whether the testing

proposed by Mr. Tennison is in fact destructive as argued by the City. If not destructive, then the

testing should be permitted. If destructive, then the Court must balance the interests to be served by

the testing against countervailing considerations.

The Court finds that Mr. Tennison is not seeking any destructive testing. At the hearing on

the motion, the City represented to the Court that each tape contains approximately 23 minutes of

inaudible sound and that the remainder of the tape is blank. For the inaudible sound, Mr. Tennison’s

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 159 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

1

 The City’s expert also claims that magnetic development testing is destructive because the

physical process of testing requires removal and manipulation of the tape. See Begault Decl. ¶ 8 (“The

tape must be pulled out of the protective plastic shell, lay flat for development, and then rewound by

hand, allowing for potential damage to tape due to bending and creasing.”). However, the Court does

not give much weight to this claim. Mr. Tennison’s expert is experienced with this type of testing --

indeed, recently tested 800 tapes in a single case, none of which suffered damage by folding and

creasing. See Sanders Reply Decl. ¶ 3.

3

expert will conduct only testing that is -- as conceded by the City -- nondestructive (e.g., critical

listening, waveform analysis, spectral analysis, audio enhancement). It is only for those portions of

the tape that are blank that the expert will conduct magnetic development testing. Magnetic

development testing is to indicate whether the tapes contained data at one time but were

subsequently erased. See Sanders Reply Decl. ¶ 7. While the City’s expert claims that magnetic

development testing is destructive because it may cause a loss of signal, see Begault Decl. ¶ 9, there

will be no loss of signal here because those parts of the tape will already be blank.1 Given the

purpose of magnetic development testing -- to determine whether a blank tape with no audible sound

may have been erased -- any loss of high frequency will be inconsequential. In fact, the City admits

that even after Mr. Tennison’s expert conducts magnetic development testing on the blank section of

the tape, the City can conduct a subsequent test. Because the first test on blank tape will not

preclude the City’s subsequent testing, magnetic development testing is not destructive. To the

extent the City is concerned that Mr. Tennison’s expert will conduct magnetic development testing

on an inaudible section, the City can make a duplicate archive copy of the tape to conduct the

alternative tests. Moreover, the City will be permitted to observe the testing by Mr. Tennison’s

expert.

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders as follows:

1. The City shall have until 12:00 p.m. of May 23, 2005, to produce the audiotapes to

Mr. Tennison for testing. This should give the City adequate time to archive the tapes for their own

use. The City has conceded that archiving of the tapes will preserve the inaudible sound contained

on the tapes.

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 159 Filed 05/20/05 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

4

2. The testing shall be done by Mr. Tennison’s expert, Richard W. Sanders. Mr.

Sanders shall test the audiotapes on any day between May 24 and 27, 2005. Mr. Tennison has agreed

that the City may choose which day the testing shall take place. 

3. For any portion of the audiotapes, Mr. Sanders shall be allowed to do any testing that

the parties have agreed is nondestructive (e.g., critical listening, waveform analysis, spectral analysis,

and audio enhancement). Mr. Sanders shall only be allowed to do magnetic development testing on

those portions of the tape that he, in good faith and in the exercise of his professional judgment,

determines to be blank (as opposed to inaudible). 

4. Mr. Sanders shall document exactly what testing was done on what portions of the

tape. Mr. Sanders (or Mr. Tennison) shall not have any obligation to alert the City prior to doing any

magnetic development testing.

5. Mr. Tennison has agreed that the City may send a person (even its own expert) to

observe the testing by Mr. Sanders. Mr. Tennison has also agreed that the testing by Mr. Sanders

may be videotaped. The parties should meet and confer to make any necessary arrangements if te

testing is to be videotaped.

6. Within three days of the testing by Mr. Sanders, the tapes shall be returned to the

City. The City may not do any magnetic development testing of its own until after Mr. Sanders has

completed his testing and the tapes returned.

B. Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Witnesses

Mr. Tennison’s motion to compel the production of certain documents and certain witnesses

is denied, without prejudice, as moot. To the extent that there are related discovery disputes raised in

the parties’ joint letter of May 13, 2005, see Docket No. 141, those disputes are discussed below.

C. Parties’ Joint Letter of May 13, 2005

On May 13, 2005, the parties filed a joint letter, in which Mr. Tennison argued that (1)

although the City has produced for deposition some 30(b)(6) witnesses, those witnesses have not

been adequately prepared and (2) the City has improperly instructed those witnesses not to answer

certain questions. On May 17, 2005, the City filed a motion for protective order concerning its

instruction to the 30(b)(6) witnesses not to answer certain questions.

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 159 Filed 05/20/05 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

5

The Court hereby orders the parties to meet and confer in person on both issues. Regarding

the second issue, as stated at the hearing on the above motions to compel, the Court finds the

reasoning in Detoy v. City & County of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D. 362 (N.D. Cal. 2000), persuasive,

and the parties are to be guided by that opinion as well as the Court’s comments at the hearing.

If, after the meet and confer, any disputes remain, the parties shall file a joint letter by June 8,

2005, explaining what the disputes are. For each dispute, the parties should provide a brief statement

of their position, including citation to any relevant legal authority. The joint letter shall be in lieu of

any briefing -- both with respect to the joint letter of May 13 and the City’s motion for protective

order. The remaining disputes shall be heard at 10:30 a.m. on June 22, 2005.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motion to compel production of the

audiotapes for testing but denies as moot the motion to compel production of documents and

witnesses.

This order disposes of Docket No. 115.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2005

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 159 Filed 05/20/05 Page 5 of 5