Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01770/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01770-4/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ALLISON M. ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-01770-EJD (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO COMPEL WORKER'S 

COMPENSATION RECORDS

Re: Dkt. No. 36

Plaintiff Allison Ross filed this civil rights action, claiming that she was subjected to an 

unlawful search and seizure and arrest. According to her complaint, late on the night of December 

31, 2009 she “facilitated” a call to the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department for help in a 

possible home invasion. Ross claims that deputies who arrived on the scene unlawfully detained 

her, illegally entered her home, and conducted an unlawful search of the premises. Ross further 

alleges that she was wrongfully arrested for being under the influence, and that defendants planted 

narcotics in her home, caused her to ingest water spiked with methamphetamines, and tampered 

with her blood sample in order to manufacture a false positive for narcotics. Plaintiff asserts 

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as several pendent state law claims for relief. Her 

thirteenth and fourteenth claims for relief allege that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to 

fabricate evidence against her and a conspiracy to deprive her of her Fourteenth Amendment due 

process rights through the alleged tampering with and falsification of evidence.

Case 5:14-cv-01770-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

In deposition, Ross testified that she believes she is being targeted as part of a conspiracy 

by the Sheriff’s Department to retaliate against her husband, David Campagna, for filing a 

worker’s compensation claim. Campagna, a former County correctional officer, is not a party to 

this suit.

Defendants subpoenaed Campagna’s worker’s compensation records. Citing his right to 

privacy, Campagna objected to the disclosure of those documents. Arguing that the records are 

relevant to plaintiff’s conspiracy claims and claim for punitive damages, defendants now move for 

an order compelling production, as well as for entry of a suitable protective order. Campagna 

opposes the motion. The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument, and 

the July 28, 2015 hearing is vacated.1 Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and 

responding papers, the court grants defendants’ motion.

Campagna argues that the requested records have nothing to do with plaintiff’s claims and 

says that his wife’s testimony about his worker’s compensation claim was merely her speculation

about defendants’ possible “secret motivation” for targeting her. Parties may obtain discovery 

about any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). “Relevance under Rule 26(b)(1) is construed more broadly for discovery than for trial.” 

Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng’g, Inc., 813 F.2d 1207, 1211 (Fed.Cir.1987). “Relevant 

information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to 

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Citing Katzman v. Los Angeles Cnty. Metro. Transp. Authority, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 

13-cv-00438-LHK, 2014 WL 5698207 at *11 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2014), Campagna argues that

defendants’ alleged “secret motivation” is irrelevant to a conspiracy claim, and contends that 

conspiracy “is not a cause of action.” (Dkt. 43, Opp. at 5). The cited portion of Katzman, 

however, says nothing of the kind. There, all the court said was that “because conspiracy is not 

itself a tort under § 1983, a claimed conspiracy to violate § 1983 must always have an underlying 

 

1 With respect to this particular discovery matter, this court previously granted defendants’ request 

to be excused from compliance with the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery 

Disputes. Dkt. 34.

Case 5:14-cv-01770-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

constitutional violation.” Id. (emphasis added). Ross’ conspiracy claims clearly are premised on 

an alleged violation of her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

Campagna next argues that, because he is a non-party, defendants are required to make a 

stronger showing of relevance than they would if they were seeking discovery from a party, citing 

Laxalt v. McClatchy, 116 F.R.D. 455, 458 (D. Nev. 1986) (“The rule is thus well established that 

nonparties to litigation enjoy greater protection from discovery than normal parties.”). Nonparties 

are not, however, immune from discovery; and, this court readily concludes that defendants have 

made the requisite showing of relevance here. When asked in deposition why she believes the 

County Sheriff’s Department is targeting her, Ross clearly identified Campagna’s worker’s 

compensation claim as one of the reasons, i.e., “to see if they could get him on some kind of 

Workers’ Comp fraud.” (Dkt. 36-3, Harris Decl., Ex. B at 165:23-24). Contrary to Campagna’s 

arguments, this strikes the court as more than speculative musing by plaintiff. It appears to be her 

theory of the case (or one of them), and she has put Campagna’s worker’s compensation records at 

issue. Moreover, defendants correctly note that in assessing plaintiff’s request for punitive 

damages, “a jury may award punitive damages under section 1983 either when a defendant’s

conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference 

to the constitutional rights of others.” Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) 

(citations omitted).

Campagna nevertheless maintains that the requested records should not be produced 

because they are private. “In California, the right to privacy is set forth in Article I, Section I of 

the California Constitution.” Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604 (C.D. Cal. 

1995). The right to privacy, however, is not absolute and may “be invaded for litigation 

purposes.” Id. While federal courts are to give that privacy right some weight, this court’s 

essential task is to determine whether Campagna’s privacy right outweighs defendants’ legitimate 

interest in discovery of the requested records. This court concludes that it does not.

As discussed, the scope of pre-trial discovery is very broad, and defendants have 

established that the requested records are highly relevant. Compelling their disclosure therefore 

comports with the liberal policy of discovery under the Federal Rules and the truth-seeking 

Case 5:14-cv-01770-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

function of such discovery. While there will be some intrusion on Campagna’s privacy interests 

in the contents of the records, this court finds that compelling their disclosure, solely for use in this 

litigation, will only be minimally invasive and that any intrusion will be further minimized by 

entering a suitable protective order limiting the use and dissemination of those documents.2 

Moreover, it appears that the information in those records is not available from any other source, 

except for Campagna’s testimony.3 In view of the highly relevant nature of the documents, 

however, as well as the broad scope of discovery, this court finds that defendants are entitled to 

discovery of the documents themselves in addition to Campagna’s testimony about them.

Based on the foregoing, defendants’ motion to compel production of Campagna’s worker’s 

compensation records is granted. The records shall be produced forthwith.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2

The court has reviewed defendants’ proposed protective order and finds its terms to be sufficient 

to protect the subject documents. Having received no objections to defendants’ proposed 

protective order, this court will enter it as an order (with some modification).

3 Defendants also subpoenaed Campagna for deposition, but he refused to testify. This court has 

since granted defendants’ motion to compel his testimony. Dkt. 51.

Case 5:14-cv-01770-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

5:14-cv-01770-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Aryn Paige Harris aryn.harris@cco.sccgov.org, anna.espiritu@cco.sccgov.org

B.J. Fadem bjfadem@fademlaw.com

Gabrielle Jan Korte lori@costanzo-law.com, gabrielle@costanzo-law.com, ilana@costanzolaw.com, jai@costanzo-law.com

Lori J. Costanzo lori@costanzo-law.com, samantha@costanzo-law.com

Meghan Feronie Loisel meghan.loisel@cco.sccgov.org, linda.ramos@cco.sccgov.org

Melissa R. Kiniyalocts melissa.kiniyalocts@cco.co.scl.ca.us, 

marylou.gonzales@cco.sccgov.org

Steven M. Fink smf@sjlawyers.com, crubi@sjlawyers.com, swagner@sjlawyers.com

Case 5:14-cv-01770-EJD Document 52 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 5