Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05596/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05596-37/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

1

 Although it is unclear when plaintiff propounded these interrogatories, the County’s response,

which plaintiff has submitted in support of her motion, is dated May 27, 2009. Thus, the discovery

requests that are the subject of this motion are at least one year old.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-05596 SI

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL

(Docket No. 341)

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel responses to three interrogatories sent to defendant County

of San Mateo (“the County”).1 The Court will address each interrogatory in turn. 

I. Interrogatory 1

Interrogatory 1 asked the County to “state the name and address of each and every plaintiff that

has named the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department as a Defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit

in the past 10 years, the case number, and the address of the court.” The County objected to this

interrogatory on grounds of relevance, overbreadth and burden. The Court agrees with the County that

the request, as framed by plaintiff, is overbroad. The request is not limited to claims that are similar to

plaintiff’s claims. Additionally, plaintiff has made no showing regarding why this information is

relevant to her claims. The motion to compel a response to Interrogatory 1 is DENIED.

 

Case 3:07-cv-05596-SI Document 347 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

II. Interrogatory 2

Interrogatory 2 asked the County to name “each and every person who was the subject of an

internal affairs investigation of the incidents on November 5, 2005.” The County responded to the

request by stating that “[t]here was no internal affairs investigation conducted by the San Mateo County

Sheriff’s Department of the incidents on November 5, 2005, and therefore, there is nothing to disclose.”

In her motion to compel, plaintiff contends that County Sgt. Gil Rodriguez submitted a letter to the

Court stating that the Sheriff’s Department did conduct an investigation. The Court was unable to locate

such a letter on the docket, and plaintiff did not attach a copy to her motion. The Court concludes that

the County’s response to Interrogatory 2 was adequate. The motion to compel a further response is

therefore DENIED.

III. Interrogatory 7

Finally, Interrogatory 7 asked the County to “identify each communication [it] participated in,

or kn[ew] of, concerning any of the Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful acts.” The County objected on the

grounds that the request was vague and ambiguous and called for information protected by the attorney

client privilege. The Court agrees with the County that it is not clear what plaintiff means by “the

Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful acts.” The parties are therefore directed to further meet and confer no later

than June 18, 2010 regarding the scope of the information plaintiff is seeking. The County shall

produce a response to Interrogatory 7, together with a privilege log identifying the communications the

County contends are protected by attorney-client privilege, within fourteen days of the parties’ meeting.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05596-SI Document 347 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 2