Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00492/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00492-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

PAUL HUPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SAN DIEGO

POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12cv0492 GPC(RBB)

ORDER 

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH

COURT’S [APRIL] 10, 2014 ORDER

[ECF NO. 255]; AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER [263]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Compliance with the Court’s April 10, 2014 discovery order [ECF No.

255]. Defendants City of San Diego and Wetzel’s response in

opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 262], along with an Ex

Parte Application for Protective Order [ECF No. 263], were filed on

June 16, 2014. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s Order. 

Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Protective Order is GRANTED.

1 12cv0492 GPC(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 265 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 6
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

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Paul Hupp, proceeding pro se, commenced this action

on February 28, 2012. (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s Third

Amended Complaint was filed on August 28, 2012 [ECF No. 64], naming

as Defendants San Diego County, City of San Diego, City of

Beaumont, James Patrick Romo, Raymond Wetzel, William Kiernan,

Peter Myers, and Joseph Cargel. (Third Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 64.) 

Plaintiff served discovery requests on Defendants in July 2013. 

Unable to resolve a dispute regarding the scope and relevance of

requested documents, Hupp filed a Motion to Compel Discovery on

City of San Diego and Wetsel [ECF No. 152]. 

On April 10, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in

part Hupp’s Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendants City of San

Diego and Raymond Wetzel [ECF No. 251]. The Court directed

Defendants to comply with the Order by April 23, 2014. (Order

Granting & Den. Mot. Compel 11, 30, ECF No. 251.) On May 5, 2014,

Hupp filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with Court’s [April1

] 10,

2014 Order Compelling Discovery on City of San Diego and Raymond

Wetzel [ECF No. 255] (“Motion to Compel Compliance”). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Court’s April 10, 2014 Discovery Order

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance alleges that

Defendants asked Plaintiff to sign a protective order prior to

supplementing their document production. (Pl.’s Mot. Compel

Compliance Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 3, ECF No. 255.) Hupp alleges

that the Court’s April 10, 2014 Order did not require Plaintiff to

1 The caption of Plaintiff’s motion erroneously seeks

compliance with the “August 10, 2014 Order.” 

2 12cv0492 GPC(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 265 Filed 06/24/14 Page 2 of 6
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

stipulate to a protective order. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks sanctions

in the amount of $1,000 or any reasonable amount for his time spent

preparing and filing the Motion to Compel Compliance, the original

motion to compel, and the motion to quash overly broad subpoenas. 

(Id. at 4.) 

Hupp’ Motion to Compel Discovery on City of San Diego and

Wetsel [ECF No. 152] was granted in part and denied in part. 

(Order Granting & Den. Mot. Compel, ECF No. 251.) Hupp’s document

request number two to Defendant City sought “[a]ny and all

documents that comprise of, or are part of, WETZEL’S file,

including the disciplinary record and any other documents

concerning WETZEL’S hiring, training, duties, performance,

assignments and mental and physical condition.” (Pl.’s Mot. Compel

Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 24, ECF No. 152.) In partially granting

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of items described in

request number two, the Court ordered Defendants to produce

documents from Wetzel’s personnel file if (1) they related to the

production of exculpatory evidence; (2) the items concerned

probable cause or the standards for bringing criminal or civil

contempt charges; or (3) the documents referred or related to the

credibility, truthfulness, or veracity of Wetzel. (Order Granting

& Den. Mot. Compel 18, ECF No. 251.) The April 10, 2014 Order also

stated: “These items are to be produced pursuant to a protective

order limiting use and dissemination of the items to this case and

providing for their destruction at the conclusion of the matter. 

Documents may be redacted to protect other information privileged

from discovery.” (Id.) (emphasis added). Thus, to the extent Hupp

3 12cv0492 GPC(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 265 Filed 06/24/14 Page 3 of 6
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

argues he was not required to stipulate to a protective order prior

to receiving additional discovery, he is incorrect.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to comply with the

Court’s Order when they asked him to sign a protective order on

April 24, 2014, after the deadline to comply had passed. (Pl.’s

Mot. Compel Compliance Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 3, ECF No. 255.) A

careful review of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, submitted in support of

his Motion to Compel Compliance, reveals that Hupp received an email from Defendants’ counsel on April 23, 2014, which stated:

The City defendants intend to produce additional

documents to Plaintiff following the Court’s April 10,

2014 Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. However, we

are only obligated to produce information from Detective

Wetzel’s personnel file pursuant to a Protective Order. 

I have attached a proposed Protective Order for all

parties to review and sign. Once you have approved it, I

will prepare a Joint Motion on the issue. Finally, once

the Court issues the Protective Order, the City

defendants will produce additional documents pursuant to

the terms.

(Id. Attach. #2 Hupp Decl. Ex. 1, at 5-6.) Plaintiff acknowledged

the receipt of this communication when he responded on the same

day:

The deadline to produce the amended responses is

today, if you wanted a protective order you should have

sent one over immediately after Judge Brooks issued his

order to compel on April 10, 2014.

In addition your late reply amounts to a waiver of

the protective order.

I will not stipulate to a protective order.

(Id. at 6-7.) Thus, although Plaintiff argues that Defendants’

request that he sign a protective order was untimely because it was

made on April 24, 2014, the contention is rebutted by Hupp’s

evidence. 

4 12cv0492 GPC(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 265 Filed 06/24/14 Page 4 of 6
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

The Court is satisfied, after reviewing the Motion to Compel

Compliance, accompanying exhibits, and the Defendants’ opposition,

that the Defendants complied with the Court’s April 10, 2014 Order. 

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance is DENIED. Because

the Court denies Hupp’s Motion, his request for sanctions is also

denied. 

B. Defendants’ Application for Protective Order

Defendants City of San Diego and Raymond Wetzel apply ex parte

for a protective order governing confidential information that the

Court ordered produced to Plaintiff. (Defs.’ Ex Parte Appl.

Protective Order 1, ECF No. 263.) Defendants contend that good

cause exists to issue a protective order prior to production of

responsive documents from Defendant Wetzel’s personnel file. (Id.

at 2.) Defendants’ counsel explains that she forwarded a proposed

protective order to Plaintiff, however, he refused to stipulate to

a protective order. (Id. Attach. #1 Decl. Milligan 1-2.) A copy

of the proposed protected order is attached to Defendants’

application. (Id. Attach. #3 Ex. 2, at 1-8.)

The Court previously specified that documents from police

personnel files are to be produced pursuant to a protective order. 

(Order Granting & Den. Mot. Compel 18, ECF No. 251.) Plaintiff did

not stipulate to the protective order requested by Defendants, and

failed to propose alternate language for a protective order. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ ex parte application for the entry of a

protective order is GRANTED. Furthermore, Defendants are not

required to commence production of documents pursuant to the

Court’s April 10, 2014 Order until Plaintiff acknowledges in

5 12cv0492 GPC(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 265 Filed 06/24/14 Page 5 of 6
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

writing that he has read, understands, and agrees to abide by all

the terms of the protective order. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

Compliance [ECF No. 154] is DENIED, and Defendants’ Ex Parte

Application for Protective Order [ECF No. 160] is GRANTED. 

Production under the protective order is STAYED pending a written

acknowledgment from Plaintiff that he agrees to abide by the terms

of the protective order. If Hupp wishes to receive requested

relevant documents he must provide to Defendants by July 25, 2014,

a sworn affidavit stating that he has read, understands, and agrees

to abide by the terms of the protective order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2014 ______________________________

 Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Curiel

All Parties of Record

I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\1983\HUPP0492\Mot Compel Compliance & EPA Protective Order\Order 4.wpd 6 12cv0492 GPC(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 265 Filed 06/24/14 Page 6 of 6