Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00689-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR O. ESCALANTE, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF DELANO, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv689 REC DLB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Document 21)

Plaintiff Hector Escalante (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion to compel production of

documents on May 1, 2006. The motion was heard on May 12, 2006, before the Honorable

Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Ellen Ellison appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. 

Michael Kellar appeared on behalf of Defendants City of Delano (“City”) and the individual

Delano Police Officers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this complaint for money damages brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil

rights violations against the City of Delano and several of its employees, individually and

officially, for malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, false report writing, and

conspiracy to do all of the above. 

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 24 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel on May 1, 2006, and seeks to compel

production of documents served on January 11, 2006. The parties filed their Joint Statement on

May 1, 2006.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that prior to June 9, 2003, several acts of unlawful harassment occurred

by the named officers which led to a June 9, 2003 false arrest of plaintiff and a subsequent arrest

on November 12, 2003 while charges were pending on the first arrest. Plaintiff alleges that both

arrests and the harassment by law enforcement preceding the arrests were caused or performed by

defendant Campos with the conspiratorial assistance of defendants Arviso, Johnson, Costello,

Castaneda, Nicholson, Guzman and Ortiz. Plaintiff alleges the individual officers conspired to

and wrote false police reports to justify the false arrests, false imprisonment and malicious

prosecution of plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that all allegations made against him were false and

resulted in the dismissal of all charges. Plaintiff alleges the Delano Police Department

maintained, enforced, tolerated, permitted, acquiesced and applied policies of allowing

unreasonable searches and seizures, inadequate investigations and covering up of misconduct.

Defendants contend that at all times relevant herein, plaintiff was suspected of selling

illegal drugs and was the subject of an extensive investigation which led to his arrest. The

defendants contend that at all times herein, their conduct was privileged and lawful, and that the

arrests of the plaintiff were pursuant to a valid warrant and/or based upon probable cause. The

defendants further contend that all of the officers involved in plaintiff’s investigation were

properly supervised, and that the Delano Police Department maintains policies regarding such

investigations. The defendants further contend that the Delano Police Department does not have

a custom of condoning false arrests, false imprisonment, or false report writing. The defendants

contend the plaintiff did not suffer emotional distress other than the type that would be typically

suffered by a person dealing in illegal drugs who is arrested by a law enforcement agency.

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 24 Filed 05/16/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

On January 11, 2006, plaintiff served Request for Production, Set No. 1. When

defendants failed to respond, plaintiff contacted counsel on February 17, 2006 and again on

March 23, 2006. Defendants served untimely responses on April 7, 2006 with the production of

some documents but objected to others. Plaintiff argues all objections have been waived and

requests revised responses, without objection.

Counsel for defendant, a sole practitioner, states that when the discovery was served, he

was in trial in the Fresno County Supreme Court (Garcia v. Paramount Citrus Assn, 03 CEGCG

02781.) He states that trial began on January 4, 2006 and was not completed until the month of

February 2006. As a result defendants were unable to provide timely responses. Counsel states

that is was not his intention to waive objections to plaintiff’s requests. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,

which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the

existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of

any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and

location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. .

. . The information sought need not be admissible at trial if the

information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. 

In federal question cases, privileges asserted in response to discovery requests are

determined under federal law, not the law of the forum state. Fed. R. Evid. 501; United States v.

Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989); Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of

California, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975). Federal common law recognizes a qualified

privilege for official information, also known as the governmental privilege, or state secret

privilege. Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d

192, 198 (9th Cir. 1975). The application of the official information privilege is “contingent

upon the competing interests of the requesting litigant and subject to disclosure especially where

protective measures are taken.” Id. 

Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be

raised in response to discovery requests. See Breed v. United States Dist. Ct. for Northern

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 24 Filed 05/16/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

District, 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.1976) (balancing the invasion of minor's privacy rights

against the court's need for ward files); Johnson by Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1497

(10th Cir.1992), cert. den. 507 U.S. 910, 113 S.Ct. 1255, 122 L.Ed.2d 654 (1993) (denying

discovery of names of participants in a medical study due to privacy interests of the individual

participants); Cook v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 132 F.R.D. 548, 550-51 (E.D.Cal.1990)

(balancing targeted individual's right of privacy against public's need for discovery in

employment discrimination case). 

DISCUSSION

A. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 3 - 5.

At the beginning of the hearing, the Court inquired into Defendants’ responses. Pursuant

to this discussion, it appears that Defendants have produced the documents in their possession in

response to Request for Production Numbers 3, 4 and 5 despite their “boilerplate” objections.

Failing to respond to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives all objections

thereto, including claims of privilege and work product. Richmark Corp. V. Timber Falling

Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9 Cir. 1992). Defendants failed to provide a timely response th

to plaintiff’s discovery request and therefore have waived all objections thereto. 

Moreover, there is an inherent vice in the type of “boilerplate” objections used by

Defendants. Such objections leave the propounding party and the court to speculate whether any

documents have been withheld in reliance on the objections, as occurred here. Such objections

are also of little use to the responding party in light of the provisions of Rule 34 which require

the responding party to indicate whether or not production or inspection of the requested

documents will be permitted. 

Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to provide further verified responses to Request

Numbers 2, 4 and 5, without objections and which state that all documents in their possession,

custody or control have been produced. 

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 24 Filed 05/16/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

B. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1, 6 -9 AND 14.

As stated above, defendants failed to provide timely responses to the discovery and

therefore must respond, without objection, to the remaining requests at issue in this motion. 

Notwithstanding defendants’ waiver of objections, the requests seek documents to which plaintiff

is entitled under the discovery rules as relevant to his claims.

Request for Production Number 1 seeks documents reflecting investigations of

complaints against the named defendants for unlawful police harassment, abuse of authority,

improper supervisory conduct, related employment guidelines or other civil rights violations

from five years prior to the date of the incident thought the date of defendants compliance with

this production request. Such investigations are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants

shall produce all documents in their possession, custody or control responsive tot his request. 

Request for Production Number 6 seeks documents regarding Tort claims and lawsuits

filed with the City in which any of the individually named defendants (including Jack Griggs,

Chief of Police) are identified as the responsible or named employee. At the hearing, counsel for

plaintiff confirmed that this request is limited as stated above and was not meant as a request for

all tort claims and lawsuits filed naming the City of Delano. Defendants shall produce the

requested information, as limited, without objection.

Request for Production Number 7 seeks performance evaluations for all defendants from

five (5) years before the incident through the date of the response. Defendants shall produce the

requested documents. The Court is mindful of the privacy concerns associated with documents

of this nature and therefore strongly encourages the parties to enter into a stipulated protective

order to which defendants’ production would be subject.

Request for Production Number 8 seeks training records, including background

investigations into the individual defendants suitability to serve as law enforcement officers and

all in service training records for all individually named defendants with the exception of Jack

Griggs. These documents are also relevant to plaintiff’s claims and shall be produced by

defendants, without objection, subject to any stipulated protective order the parties may enter

into. 

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 24 Filed 05/16/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Finally, Request for Production Number 9, seeking statistics regarding personnel

complaints against the Delano Police Department or its officers and Number 14, seeking

personnel jackets for all individually named defendants with the exception of Jack Griggs. These

documents should, of course, be produced subject to a stipulated protective order. Furthermore,

Defendants need only produce that portion of the personnel jackets which includes information in

the categories relevant to the claims made in this action, harassment, falsification of police

reports, false arrest, and malicious prosecution.

B. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff requests sanctions pursuant to Rule 26(g) and 37 in the amount of $400.00 per

hours for the number of hours spent in connection with this motion to compel. 

The party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses, including

reasonable attorney fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing

the motion (or other circumstances make such an award unjust). Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4). The

burden is on the losing party affirmatively to demonstrate that its position was substantially

justified. Id.

While the Court recognizes and appreciates the challenges facing sole practitioners in

dealing with a large caseload, counsel’s complete failure to communicate with counsel prior to

the deadline and inattention to this matter is warranting of sanctions. Counsel has failed to

demonstrate substantial justification for his position. The Federal Rules provide no exception for

attorneys’ scheduling issues. Furthermore, a timely request for an extension made to Plaintiff’s

attorney or to the court, if necessary, would have preserved Defendants’ right to object. 

Counsel’s inattention to the requests continued long after the date on which his trial ended.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is therefore granted. 

C. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the request served on January 11, 2006

is GRANTED. Defendants shall provide further responses and production of documents as

ordered herein, within 20 days of service of this Order. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is

GRANTED. Within 10 days of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit a declaration in support of the

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 24 Filed 05/16/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

request for sanctions detailing the number of hours spent on this motion. Defendants may

respond to the declaration within 10 days thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 16, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 24 Filed 05/16/06 Page 7 of 7