Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00418/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00418-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMIE REYES JR., through his successors in 

interest MIRELLA REYES and JAIME 

REYES, SR., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-418-LJO-SKO

ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF 

DISCOVERY BY CITY DEFENDANTS;

ORDER HOLDING PLAINTIFFS' RULE 

35 MOTION IN ABBEYANCE PENDING 

FURTHER DISCOVERY AND 

RESOLUTION OF PENDING 

DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel an independent medical examination of Defendant 

Avila pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. (Doc. 64 (sealed).) Defendants City of 

Fresno, Chief Jerry Dyer, and Officer Miguel Alvarez ("City Defendants") and Defendant Officer 

Avila ("Avila") have filed briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs have filed a reply 

brief to each opposition brief. A hearing was held on Plaintiffs' Rule 35 motion on November 19, 

2014. Julia Sherwin, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs; Bruce Praet, Esq., appeared on behalf 

of the City Defendants; Kevin Osterberg, Esq., appeared on behalf of Avila.

Due to outstanding discovery issues that must be resolved before the Rule 35 motion can 

be reached, the Court holds Plaintiffs' motion in abeyance at this time. The City Defendants shall 

produce to Plaintiffs the following categories of documents in their possession by no later than 

January 9, 2015:

Case 1:13-cv-00418-DAD-SKO Document 79 Filed 11/20/14 Page 1 of 4
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

1. Internal affairs documents pertaining to complaints and discipline records of 

Officer Avila. To the extent there is an applicable privilege asserted with regard to 

any documents, an updated privilege log will be produced;1

2. Documents such as fitness for duty examinations and psychological evaluations of 

Officer Avila that are in the City Defendants' possession pertaining to prior

shootings in which Officer Avila was involved – including the June 2012 shooting 

which is the subject of this suit. This document production shall not include

documents regarding any shooting subsequent to June 2012 in which Officer 

Avila was involved;

2

and

3. Disability records or claims of Officer Avila in the possession of the City –

including the June 2012 shooting which is the subject of this suit. This document 

production shall not include documents regarding any shooting subsequent to 

June 2012 in which Officer Avila was involved.

To the extent necessary, the City Defendants may submit documents for in-camera review 

to determine whether production is required. 

Plaintiffs' counsel shall review documents produced by the City Defendants by no later 

than January 16, 2015. The parties are to meet and confer regarding any outstanding issues 

pertaining to this document production. The parties shall file a status report by no later than 

January 30, 2015, setting forth the current posture of the production of these documents and the 

parties' positions with respect to any remaining dispute. If the parties determine the status report 

should be filed under seal, they may do so by following the procedures set forth in the Court's 

order of September 16, 2014. (Doc. 63.) 

As noted at the hearing, resolution of the discovery issues in this case must be managed in 

stages, particularly because of the unresolved patient-therapist privilege and competency issues

 

1 Ms. Sherwin agreed to provide Mr. Praet with a copy of a privilege log that was previously provided to Plaintiffs by 

former counsel for Defendants; Plaintiffs claim the existing privilege log is insufficient and must be supplemented. 

2 The Court will address production of documents related to any shooting subsequent to June 2012 in which Officer 

Avila was involved after this initial production has been made.

Case 1:13-cv-00418-DAD-SKO Document 79 Filed 11/20/14 Page 2 of 4
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

that have arisen. Therefore, the scheduling deadlines have been vacated and discovery will 

proceed in stages, the first of which is outlined above.

When production of the foregoing documents by City Defendants has been made, the 

Court will next consider the following issues:3

 Whether City Defendants are required to produce documents related to a post-June 2012 

shooting in which Officer Avila was involved. 

 Whether Officer Avila's personal medical records not provided to the City must be 

produced to Plaintiffs. It is Defendant Avila's burden to assert and establish a privilege 

with regard to his medical records and the August 2014 declarations submitted to the Court 

(but not filed) and served on all parties. The burden then shifts to Plaintiffs to establish 

that Defendant Avila waived any applicable privilege as it pertains to medical records not 

provided to the City. 

 Whether Defendant Avila's competency to waive any applicable privilege is at issue. If 

there is a question about Defendant Avila's competency to waive an applicable patienttherapist privilege, an independent medical evaluation of Defendant Avila's current

competency may be necessary. 

 Whether Defendant Avila's past competency and mental condition have been put into issue 

such that a retrospective independent medical examination is warranted.

When these issues are resolved, the document production necessary prior to the deposition 

of Officer Avila will likely be complete, and his deposition can be set with any appropriate scope 

limitations. The Court will then be able to take up the question of whether Dr. Price-Sharps may 

be deposed and any other remaining discovery issues.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. By no later than January 9, 2015, City Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs the 

categories of documents listed above, subject to the assertions of privilege and the 

 

3 This list is not meant to be exhaustive of all relevant issues, but is intended to place before the parties an outline of 

several areas that appear necessary to resolve prior to setting the deposition of Defendant Avila or ordering an IME 

pursuant to Rule 35.

Case 1:13-cv-00418-DAD-SKO Document 79 Filed 11/20/14 Page 3 of 4
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

production of a privilege log as well as any in-camera review of documents City 

Defendants deem necessary;

2. By no later than January 16, 2015, Plaintiffs shall review City Defendants' 

production of documents;

3. By no later than January 30, 2015, the parties are to meet and confer and file a 

status report regarding the production of documents and disputes thereto; and

4. The Court will set a further hearing or status conference once the parties' status 

report has been filed and reviewed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00418-DAD-SKO Document 79 Filed 11/20/14 Page 4 of 4