Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01772/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01772-4/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

TERALYN RENEA EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRESTON GILMORE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01772-MEJ 

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 47

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter in which Defendant 

Contra Costa County (the “County”) seeks to compel Plaintiff Teralyn Renea Evans (“Plaintiff”) 

to respond to certain outstanding discovery requests. Dkt. No. 47. As a preliminary matter, 

Defendant states the parties did not meet in confer in person because of Plaintiff’s remote location

in Parlier, California. Jt. Ltr. at 1. However, Plaintiff states she “has no travel restraints that 

would prevent a meeting near the Defendants’ location.” Id. at 8. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the 

undersigned’s Discovery Standing Order, the parties must meet and confer in person for the 

purpose of resolving all disputes. Accordingly, while the Court shall consider this letter, the 

parties are advised that no further disputes will be considered unless the parties comply with the 

Standing Order.1 

Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this 

case, the Court issues the following order.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this case against the County, the City of Richmond, and a number of their 

employees based on the removal of Plaintiff from her parents’ custody and temporary placement 

in foster care in 2002. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Although Plaintiff’s parents filed a civil suit in 2003,

 

1

The parties are also advised that the Court will not consider any further letters that exceed the 

five-page limit, unless leave to exceed the limit has previously been granted.

Case 3:15-cv-01772-MEJ Document 48 Filed 04/04/16 Page 1 of 4
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

see Compl. in Evans, et al. v. Gilmore, et. al., No. 03-cv-643 MEJ (N.D. Cal., filed on Feb. 14, 

2003), Plaintiff brought the present case on her own behalf after turning 18. Plaintiff named 

twelve defendants and brought six causes of action against all of them: (1) “Violations of Civil 

Right to Security in Persons and Houses” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) “Violations of Civil Right 

to Due Process of Law” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) “Violations of Civil Right to Equal Rights 

under the Law” under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (4) “Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights” under 42 

U.S.C. § 1985; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (6) Negligent Infliction of 

Emotional Distress. See Compl. After the County moved to dismiss, the Court dismissed all of 

Plaintiff’s state law claims against the County as untimely, but allowed her federal claims to 

proceed. Order, Dkt. No. 33. 

On October 26, 2015, the County served Special Interrogatory Requests and Requests for 

Production on Plaintiff. Jt. Ltr. at 3. Plaintiff failed to produce any documents in response. Id. 

After the parties conferred by email, Plaintiff stated she “will provide the recorded materials for 

copy at the Defendant’s expense due to the time-consuming and costly nature of making copies of 

all the recorded materials in Plaintiff’s possession.” Id. However, after the County set up a 

meeting location near Plaintiff’s remote location and sent a copy service to make the necessary 

copies, Plaintiff did not produce any documents for copying. Id. As to her interrogatory 

responses, Plaintiff objected on the basis that responses would cause her “embarrassment and 

undue burden.” Jt. Ltr., Ex. A (Pl.’s Special Interrog. Resps.). 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a party may obtain discovery “regarding 

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 

needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Factors to consider include “the importance of the 

issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 

information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. 

Discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id. However, “[t]he parties and 

the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and 

Case 3:15-cv-01772-MEJ Document 48 Filed 04/04/16 Page 2 of 4
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

consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee notes (2015 

amendments). Thus, there is “a shared responsibility on all the parties to consider the factors 

bearing on proportionality before propounding discovery requests, issuing responses and 

objections, or raising discovery disputes before the courts.” Salazar v. McDonald’s Corp., 2016 

WL 736213, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016); Goes Int’l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., 2016 WL 427369, at 

*4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) (citing advisory committee notes for proposition that parties share a 

“collective responsibility” to consider proportionality and requiring that “[b]oth parties . . . tailor 

their efforts to the needs of th[e] case”).

Rule 26(c) “confers broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is 

appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 

20, 36 (1984). “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from 

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including by (1) prohibiting 

disclosure or discovery; (2) conditioning disclosure or discovery on specified terms; (3) 

preventing inquiry into certain matters; or (4) limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to 

certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the County’s discovery requests, the Court finds they are relevant. The 

County’s Special Interrogatories seek information regarding the facts supporting Plaintiff’s 

allegations, her personal recollection of the events that transpired, and contact information for 

Plaintiff’s health care provider who treated her for the injuries alleged in her Complaint. Jt. Ltr., 

Ex. A. As she is the person who filed this lawsuit, Plaintiff cannot now claim “embarrassment” as 

a reason not to provide information on the facts surrounding her claims. The County’s Requests 

for Production seek the same information. Id., Ex. B (Pl.’s Resps. to Reqs. for Produc.). Plaintiff

does not appear to argue that the requests are not relevant; instead, she argues: “The extended 

length of this [joint letter] only serves to restate facts that will not be relevant at trial and to cast 

the Plaintiff’s integrity and approach in litigating her claims in an inaccurate and negative 

manner.” Id. at 8. However, the fact that Plaintiff may disagree with the County’s position does 

not mean it is not entitled to obtain relevant discovery, regardless of whether it is admissible at 

Case 3:15-cv-01772-MEJ Document 48 Filed 04/04/16 Page 3 of 4
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

trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee notes (2015 

amendments) (“Discovery of nonprivileged information not admissible in evidence remains 

available so long as it is otherwise within the scope of discovery.”). Plaintiff states she “is 

satisfied that she can successfully argue her case with discovery as-is and the truthful testimony of 

all witnesses during trial.” Jt. Ltr. at 8. But Plaintiff fails to acknowledge that the County is also 

entitled to present its case. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the County’s relevant discovery 

requests, and the County is therefore entitled to move for an order compelling the information it 

seeks. 

Further, Plaintiff does not deny she previously admitted she is in possession of the 

documents at issue. Id. at 4. The County also notes that in her Initial Disclosures, Plaintiff stated 

she has: (1) original or copied versions of communications between her parents and County 

personnel during the relevant time period; (2) original or copied versions of home videos from the 

period of time preceding and following the period covered in her Complaint; and (3) original or 

copied versions of written, drawn, or otherwise recorded means of communication she make 

regarding the allegations in her Complaint. Id. Having previously admitted she is in possession of 

these documents, Plaintiff is now required to produce them.

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to respond to the County’s 

discovery requests by April 29, 2016. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the County may 

move for sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01772-MEJ Document 48 Filed 04/04/16 Page 4 of 4