Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01039/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01039-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HYLTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANYTIME TOWING, RICKENBACKER

COLLECTION SERVICES,

RICKENBACKER GROUP,

RICKENBACKER COLLECTION

SYSTEM, CARLOS CASAS, ENRIQUEZ,

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, DOES 1-10,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11-cv-1039 JLS (WMc)

ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA

REVIEW

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 14, 2012, Plaintiff pro se filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and

to Answer Interrogatories and for Sanctions in the above entitled case. [ECF No. 124.] . On August

29, 2012, Defendant City of San Diego filed an opposition brief. [ECF No. 136.] On September 5,

2012, Plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of his motion to compel. [ECF No. 138.] Also on

September 7, 2012, Defendant Anytime Towing filed an opposition brief. [ECF No. 140.] On

September 12, 2012, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel. On September 13,

2012, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying part Plaintiff’s motion to compel and

directing Defendant Andal to lodge the requests for production and the answers or objections to the

requests for production for in camera review. [ECF No. 146.] The materials were lodged with

11cv1039 JLS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-01039-GPC-WMC Document 147 Filed 09/18/12 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

Judge McCurine’s chambers on September 13, 2012. The Court has completed its in camera review

and issues the following order. 

II. IN CAMERA REVIEW

Under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is to produce all relevant

documents in his “possession, custody, or control.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(1). A party may be

required to produce a document that is in the possession of a nonparty entity if the party has the

legal right to obtain the document. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 619

(N.D.Cal.1995). The term “control” is broadly construed, and it includes documents that the

responding party has the legal right to obtain from third parties. See id. (citations omitted); 7

James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice, § 34.14[2][b], at 34–73 to 34–75 (footnotes

omitted). 

The Court has reviewed Defendant Andal’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests for

production. Defendant Andal’s responses as to requests for production Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 are

sufficient and require no further response. Only an objection, however, was given as to requests

for production 2 and 3. Given the broad parameters of Rule 34, the Court ORDERS Defendant

Andal to serve responses to those requests only:

a.) Request for Production No. 2 - Defendant Andal has objected to this request on the

grounds that it is overly broad, indefinite as to time, vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as to

“refer to or relate to your training.” The objection is OVERRULED. The Court finds

Plaintiff’s request for materials which show Defendant Andal’s training, if any, as an officer

regarding the acceptance of alternate evidence of automobile registration under California

Vehicle Code section 4462 is not broad, vague or unintelligible. Under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, parties may obtain discovery of material that is (1) “not privileged” and (2) “relevant

to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A relevant

matter is “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear

on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D.

Cal. 1995) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).) Records

concerning training and performance, have been held to be relevant on the issues of credibility,

2 11cv1039 JLS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-01039-GPC-WMC Document 147 Filed 09/18/12 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

notice to the employer, ratification by the employer, motive of the officers and malicious intent. 

See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. at 613 (citing Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D.

227, 229 (S.D. Cal. 1993). Accordingly, Defendant Andal is ORDERED to produce relevant

documents, if any, in his possession, custody, or control in response to Interrogatory No. 2.

b.) Request for Production No. 3 - Defendant Andal has objected to this request on the

grounds that it is overly broad, indefinite as to time, vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as to

“refer to or relate to your training.” The objection is OVERRULED. The Court finds

Plaintiff’s request for materials which show Defendant Andal’s training, if any, as an officer

regarding the presentation of temporary receipts under California Vehicle Code section 4462 is

not broad, vague or unintelligible. Accordingly, Defendant Andal is ORDERED to produce

relevant documents, if any, in his possession, custody, or control in response to

Interrogatory No. 3.

Courts have fulfilled a plaintiff’s need for discovery while protecting a defendant’s

privacy by ordering the production of documents subject to a protective order limiting the access

to the material at issue to plaintiff, his counsel and those experts who require such information to

formulate an opinion. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 617 (N.D. Cal. 1995.)

If responsive documents to requests for production nos. 2 and 3 are found, the Court orders the

parties to enter into an appropriate protective order governing the documents to be produced.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In accordance with the Court’s findings expressed above, Defendant is ordered to 

respond to Plaintiff’s requests for production nos. 2 and 3 no later than October 5, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 18, 2012

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

3 11cv1039 JLS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-01039-GPC-WMC Document 147 Filed 09/18/12 Page 3 of 3