Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02576/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02576-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD DOWELL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv2576-DMS (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS TO COMPEL. 

[ECF No. 37, 58]

vs.

W.T GRIFFIN, et al., 

Defendants.

On November 10, 2009, Donald Dowell (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). On

March 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel responses to his requests for production of

documents and interrogatories. (Doc. No. 37). On March 11, 2011, Defendants filed a Notice

regarding Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. No. 38). In their Notice, Defendants state that they have had

difficulty meeting and conferring with Plaintiff regarding their discovery dispute, that they were

not “provided with a full set of Motion documents” and that they “intend to file their Opposition”

by March 28, 2011. Id. On May 18, 2011, this Court issued an Order requiring Defendants’

response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (Doc. No. 48). Defendants filed their response on June

1, 2011. (Doc. No. 54). On June 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed another Motion to Compel (Doc. No.

58). In his second Motion, Plaintiff brings additional challenges to Defendants’ responses to his

requests for Production of Documents. Id. 

- 1 - 09cv2576-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02576-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 10
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. Legal Standard

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing

parties to obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s

claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, “[f]or good cause, the court may order

discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Id. Relevant

information for discovery purposes includes any information “reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence,” and need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable. Id.

There is no requirement that the information sought directly relate to a particular issue in the case. 

Rather, relevance encompasses any matter that “bears on” or could reasonably lead to matter that

could bear on, any issue that is or may be presented in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.

Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 354 (1978). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy

for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly,

district courts have broad discretion to limit discovery where the discovery sought is

“unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits also should

be imposed where the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.

“An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired under Rule 26(b).” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must answer each interrogatory by stating the

appropriate objection(s) with specificity or by “answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under

oath.” Id. at 33(b). The responding party has the option in certain circumstances to answer an

interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making those records available to the

interrogating party. Id. at 33(d).

Similarly, a party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule

26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “For each item or category, the response must either state that

inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request,

including the reasons.” Id. at 34(b). The responding party is responsible for all items in “the

responding party’s possession, custody, or control.” Id. at 34(a)(1). Actual possession, custody or

control is not required. Rather, “[a] party may be ordered to produce a document in the possession

- 2 - 09cv2576-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02576-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/11/11 Page 2 of 10
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

of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right to obtain the document or has control over the

entity who is in possession of the document. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 620

(N.D.Cal.1995).

II. Discussion

In his first Motion to Compel, Plaintiff challenges Defendants’ responses to his requests for

production of documents and responses to the interrogatories sent to Defendants Griffin, Iversen,

Zdunich, Botkin, and Johnson. (Doc. No. 37, Exs. 1-5). Defendants do not address these requests

separately. Rather, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s requests are too broad or seek irrelevant

material. (Doc. No. 54). In his Second Motion, Plaintiff challenges Defendants’ responses to

more of his requests for production of documents. (Doc. No. 58). Defendants did not file a

response to Plaintiff’s Second Motion. 

Despite the legal requirement to state objections with specificity, the Defendants instead

presented a “preliminary statement” and a list of “general objections” which they incorporated by

reference wholesale into each of their responses. (Doc. No. 54). However, Fed. R. Civ. P.

33(b)(4) requires that all objections to interrogatory requests must be made with specificity. 

Defendants are cautioned that, to the extent that the Court requires additional and supplemental

responses, as provided below, the Defendants must state any objections with specificity or such

objections will be deemed waived. 

1. Requests for Production of Documents

In his First Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 37) and Second Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 54),

Plaintiff challenges many of Defendants’ responses to his requests for production of documents. 

Defendants do not address each request separately. Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits

of each request challenged by Plaintiff. 

Request for Production #8: Plaintiff requested transcripts from his Superior Court case,

stating that he has an “undue hardship” and that “no funding is available.” (Doc. No. 37). Even if

Defendants have these documents in their possession, they do not have a responsibility to copy

them and send them to Plaintiff at their own expense. No response is required. 

Request for Production #11: Plaintiff requests documents “concerning named defendants’

- 3 - 09cv2576-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02576-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/11/11 Page 3 of 10
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

attempt to initiate a parole hold or a 4th waiver search of a parolee, including documents of

officer’s investigations of suspected parole violations.” Plaintiff does not explain what answer, if

any, was provided by Defendants and how this answer was deficient. Likewise, Defendants do not

appear to have provided the Court with their response to this question, despite a Court order

compelling them to do so. (Doc. No. 48). However, because the request on its face appears to 

seek documents unrelated to the instant lawsuit, Defendants are not required to respond further. 

Request for Production #13: Plaintiff requests “documents concerning training policies or

procedures of United States Constitutional searches.” (Doc. No. 37). Plaintiff contends that

Defendants’ response to this question was “evasive.” Id. Defendants do not address this question

in their Response. Plaintiff’s request is relevant, but overbroad. Defendants are ordered to

produce, if they have not already, and to the extent that non-privileged documents exist,

documents containing the policies or procedures governing the conduct of searches to comply with

Constitutional requirements, in effect during the relevant time period.

Requests for Production #21-25: Plaintiff requests the names of various officers, police

procedures, and “all information” pertaining to certain incidents. (Doc. No. 58). Plaintiff lists

various badge numbers and incident report numbers in connection with these requests. (Doc. No.

58). Defendants object these requests on the grounds that they are “vague, overbroad, ambiguous,

compound and unintelligible.” (Doc. No. 54). Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ answers are

evasive and incomplete. (Doc. No. 58). The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s questions are compound

and unintelligible. Furthermore, as the Court interprets the requests, they appear to involve

incidents and officers unrelated to the current dispute. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

is denied as it pertains to these questions, and Defendants need not provide additional responses. 

2. Interrogatories

As an initial matter, Defendants did not answer all of Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Plaintiff

submitted 25 interrogatories to each Defendant, but Defendants identified many of these requests

as compound, and re-numbered them. Defendants then answered what they considered to be the

first 25 requests, and refused to answer the rest. While Defendants are correct that many of

Plaintiff’s requests were compound, some were not. For example, in Interrogatory #12 of the

- 4 - 09cv2576-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02576-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/11/11 Page 4 of 10
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

Griffin Interrogatories, Plaintiff asks “did you get approval to conduct your surveillance and

search of Plaintiff Dowell’s residence[.]” (Doc. No. 37). Defendant considered this to be two

interrogatories. Additionally, Defendants identified four sub-parts in Interrogatory #5 of the

Botkin Interrogatories. (Doc. No. 54). While Defendants are correct that the question is

compound, it should be renumbered into, at most, three questions, not four. Furthermore, it is

difficult to determine how Defendants divided the question, as they did not identify what they

believed to be the various sub-parts. 

As a consequence of the Defendants’ unilateral action, Plaintiff did not have the option to

rephrase or reconsider his questions or to petition the Court for leave to file additional

interrogatories. Inasmuch as it appears that the overage is not significant and does not appear to

unduly burden Defendants, leave likely would have been granted by this Court. 

Consequently, the Court ORDERS Defendants to answer the remainder of Plaintiff’s

interrogatories. 

Regarding Plaintiff’s individual interrogatory requests, the Court rules as follows:

A. Defendant Griffin

Plaintiff challenges Defendants’ responses to his interrogatories as being “evasive and

incomplete.” (Doc. No. 37, Ex. 1). Plaintiff does not identify how Defendants’ answers are

evasive or incomplete. Defendants do not specifically address these interrogatories in their

response. 

Interrogatory #3: Plaintiff asks a series of questions relating to what Griffin saw on the

night of December 17, 2008. (Doc. No. 37). Defendants answer several parts, but object to the

questions “did you observe suspicious activity?” and “did you observe any probable cause

activity?” Defendants contend that these questions call for legal conclusions. (Doc. No. 54). 

Plaintiff challenges Defendants’ response as evasive and incomplete. (Doc. No. 37). The Court

disagrees with the Defendants that these questions call for legal conclusions. Fairly read,

Plaintiff’s question merely asks what the respondent observed. They do not call for respondent to

determine whether those observations amounted to probable cause. Accordingly, Defendants are

required to respond.

- 5 - 09cv2576-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02576-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/11/11 Page 5 of 10
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

Interrogatory #4: Plaintiff asks Griffin to describe “what you did, if anything, to ensure

that San Diego Police Officers followed the Fourth Waiver search, and Fourth Amendment

Constitutional search policies in effect during your employment as a San Diego Police Officer, on

December 17, 2008.” (Doc. No. 37). Defendants object on the grounds that the question is

“vague, ambiguous, and compound,” but answers that Griffin “relied on information provided by

the Officer on the case.” (Doc. No. 54). Plaintiff contends that this answer is evasive and

incomplete. (Doc. No. 37). The Court finds that Defendants objections are without merit, but

acknowledges that despite their objections, Defendants answered the question. Accordingly,

Defendants are not required to provide an additional response. 

Interrogatory #5: Plaintiff asks Griffin how he became aware of Plaintiff’s allegations

that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. (Doc. No. 37). Griffin responded that he

“learned during the search while in the kitchen of Plaintiff’s residence that Plaintiff may not have a

Fourth Waiver.” (Doc. No. 54). Plaintiff contends this answer is incomplete. Defendants’

response does not appear to answer Plaintiff’s request. As the Court understands Plaintiff’s

question, Plaintiff asked when Griffin learned of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and Defendants’

response appears to describe when Griffin became aware that Plaintiff may not have had a valid

Fourth Amendment waiver. Accordingly, if Defendants’ answer would change in light of the

Court’s interpretation, Defendants must amend their response. 

Interrogatory #6: Defendants appear to have fully answered Plaintiff’s question. Plaintiff

has not indicated how Defendants’ response is inadequate, other than to say it is “evasive and

incomplete.” (Doc. No. 37). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further response is

denied. 

Interrogatories #8-12: Defendants appear to have fully answered Plaintiff’s question. 

Plaintiff has not indicated how Defendants’ response is inadequate, other than to say it is “evasive

and incomplete.” (Doc. No. 37). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further response is

denied. 

B. Defendant Iversen

- 6 - 09cv2576-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02576-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/11/11 Page 6 of 10
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

Interrogatory #3: As part of Interrogatory #3, Plaintiff asks if Iverson “observe[d] any

probable cause activity on December 17, 2008.” (Doc. No. 37). Defendants contend that the

question seeks a legal conclusion and is irrelevant, and do not answer. (Doc. No. 54). Plaintiff

moves to compel Defendants to provide an answer. As explained above, the request does not seek

a legal conclusion. Accordingly, Defendants are not required to provide an additional response. 

Interrogatory #8: Plaintiff asks if Iversen was part of the surveillance team on December

17, 2008, and if so “who else had knowledge of the incident at 2715 Marcy Avenue, San Diego,

CA 92113, on December 17, 2008, prior to the surveillance and incident?” (Doc. No. 37). 

Defendants’ answered “no” to the first part, then objected to the second on the grounds that it is

not within the Respondent’s personal knowledge, and that it assumes facts not in evidence. (Doc.

No. 54). Plaintiff challenges this objection on the grounds that “assumes facts not in evidence” is

an improper objection to an interrogatory. (Doc. No. 37). Defendants’ objection that the question

“assumes facts not in evidence” is overruled. However, as Defendants answered “no” to part one,

no additional response is required.

Interrogatory #10: Defendants appear to have fully answered Plaintiff’s question. 

Plaintiff has not indicated how Defendants’ response is inadequate, other than to say it is “evasive

and incomplete.” (Doc. No. 37). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further response is

denied. 

C. Defendant Zdunich

Interrogatory #1: Defendants appear to have fully answered Plaintiff’s question. 

Plaintiff has not indicated how Defendants’ response is inadequate. (Doc. No. 37). Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further response is denied. 

Interrogatory #5: Defendants appear to have fully answered Plaintiff’s question. 

Plaintiff has not indicated how Defendants’ response is inadequate, other than to say it is “evasive

and incomplete.” (Doc. No. 37). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further response is

denied. 

Interrogatory #6: As part of this request, Plaintiff asks, “What did you find in the

possession of Plaintiff Dowell during your traffic stop in the 800 block of 11th Ave, San Diego,

- 7 - 09cv2576-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02576-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/11/11 Page 7 of 10
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

CA 92101 on December 17, 2008? (Doc. No. 37). Defendants’ objected to the question on the

grounds that it seeks a legal conclusion. (Doc. No. 54). The request does not call for a legal

conclusion, and Defendants’ are required to respond. Defendants’ other responses relating to this

interrogatory need not be amended. 

Interrogatory #9: Defendants appear to have fully answered Plaintiff’s question. 

Plaintiff has not indicated how Defendants’ response is inadequate, other than to say it is “evasive

and incomplete.” (Doc. No. 37). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further response is

denied. 

Interrogatory #10: Plaintiff asks whether respondent testified at a hearing on December

17, 2008, and what the result of that hearing was. (Doc. No. 37). Defendants object on the

grounds that the information is equally accessible to Plaintiff. The Defendants’ objection is

overruled and Defendants are required to respond. 

Interrogatory #11: Defendants appear to have fully answered Plaintiff’s question. 

Plaintiff has not indicated how Defendants’ response is inadequate, other than to say it is “evasive

and incomplete.” (Doc. No. 37). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further response is

denied. 

Interrogatory #12: Plaintiff asks respondent to identify who was in charge of Team 8 on

December 17, 2008. Defendants respond that Sgt. Griffin “had knowledge of the search[,]” and

adds “Responding Party cannot respond to the remainder of the question because he has no

personal knowledge about what other senior police officers knew on December 17, 2008.” 

Defendants’ response is non-responsive. Plaintiff asked who was in charge of Team 8, not who

had knowledge of the search. Accordingly, Defendants must amend their response. 

D. Defendant Botkin

Interrogatory #3: Defendants appear to have fully answered Plaintiff’s question. 

Plaintiff has not indicated how Defendants’ response is inadequate, other than to say it is “evasive

and incomplete.” (Doc. No. 37). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further response is

denied. 

Interrogatory #4: This interrogatory is identical to Griffin Interrogatory #3. For the same

- 8 - 09cv2576-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02576-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/11/11 Page 8 of 10
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

reasons, Defendants are not required to produce an additional response. 

Interrogatory #5, 9, 12: Defendants appear to have fully answered Plaintiff’s question. 

Plaintiff has not indicated how Defendants’ response is inadequate, other than to say it is “evasive

and incomplete.” (Doc. No. 37). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further response is

denied. 

Interrogatory #14: Defendants’ did not answer the last sub-part of this question, asserting

that Plaintiff had exceeding the 25 interrogatory limit. (Doc. No. 54). Defendants must fully

answer the question, in accordance with the Court’s order above. 

E. Defendant Johnson

Interrogatory #7: Defendants’ only response to this request is “not applicable.” (Doc.

No. 54). It is unclear how this responds to Plaintiff’s request. Accordingly, Defendants’ are

required to either fully and specifically explain their objection, or provide an answer to Plaintiff’s

request. 

Interrogatory #8: Defendants appear to have fully answered Plaintiff’s question. 

Plaintiff has not indicated how Defendants’ response is inadequate, other than to say it is “evasive

and incomplete.” (Doc. No. 37). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further response is

denied. 

Interrogatory #9: Plaintiff’s request contains the question “were you present at or near

Plaintiff Dowell’s residence, at 2715 Marcy Ave, San Diego, CA 92113, the night of the incident

complained of in the First Amended Complaint on December 17, 2008? (Doc. No. 37). 

Defendants’ objected on the grounds that the request seeks a legal conclusion. (Doc. No. 54). 

Defendants’ objection is overruled, and Defendants are required to respond to the request. 

Interrogatory #13: Defendants appear to have fully answered Plaintiff’s question. 

Plaintiff has not indicated how Defendants’ response is inadequate, other than to say it is “evasive

and incomplete.” (Doc. No. 37). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further response is

denied. 

/ / /

/ / /

- 9 - 09cv2576-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02576-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/11/11 Page 9 of 10
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

III. Conclusion

Defendants are ORDERED to respond to all unanswered interrogatories, and to provide

additional responses as directed above. Defendants must provide responses no later than August

8, 2011. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 11, 2011

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

 

- 10 - 09cv2576-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:09-cv-02576-CAB-MDD Document 59 Filed 07/11/11 Page 10 of 10