Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03226/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03226-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

JAMES NEUROTH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MENDOCINO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03226-RS (NJV)

ORDER ON DISCOVERY LETTER 

BRIEFS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 143, 144

On March 1, 2017, the Court heard three discovery disputes in the above-referenced case 

submitted for consideration via joint letter briefs as Docket Numbers 143 and 144. The hearing 

was held in the Court’s Eureka Courthouse, and counsel for all parties appeared at the hearing by 

telephone, including: Michael Haddad of Haddad & Sherwin LLP, representing Plaintiff James 

Neuroth (“Plaintiff”); Anne Keck of Keck Law Offices, representing Defendants Mendocino 

County Sheriff’s Office Sergeant Lorrie Knapp, Correctional Deputy Michael Grant, and former 

Correctional Deputies Craig Bernardi, Christine De Los Santos, Jeanette Holum, Frank Masterson, 

and Robert Page (collectively, the “Correctional Deputy Defendants”); Jerome Varanini of the 

Law Offices of Jerome M. Varanini, representing Defendants California Forensic Medical Group, 

Inc., and Dr. Taylor Fithian (collectively, the “CFMG Defendants”); and Scott Lewis of Perry, 

Johnson, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz, LLP, representing Defendants the City of Willits and 

Willits Police Officer Kevin Leef (collectively, the “Willits Defendants”). 

The three discovery matters which were heard, considered, and resolved by the Court at the 

hearing include the following:

//

Case 3:15-cv-03226-RS Document 149 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 3
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

1. Plaintiff’s request for Defendant Willits Police Officer Leef’s un-redacted prehiring questionnaires contained in Defendant City of Willits’ police department 

personnel file (joint letter brief filed as Docket No. 143);

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of the personal financial information 

of seven Correctional Deputy Defendants for purposes of punitive damages 

(joint letter brief filed as Docket No. 144); and 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production from Defendants CFMG and Fithian 

of Documents sought in Plaintiff’s Third Request for Production of 

Documents, due to Defendants’ failure to serve a timely response or any 

objections (attached as Exhibit B to the joint letter brief filed as Docket No. 

144).

Pursuant to this Court’s review of the above-referenced joint letter briefs and their attached 

exhibits, consideration of other papers in the Court’s files, consideration of the oral arguments of 

counsel made at the hearing, and with good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

A. Officer Leef’s Pre-Hiring Questionnaire [Dkt. No. 143]: Plaintiff’s request for 

production of Willits Police Officer Leef’s un-redacted pre-hiring questionnaires contained in 

Defendant City of Willits’ police department personnel file, as discussed in the joint letter brief 

filed as Docket No. 143, is hereby GRANTED. The Court finds that, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Evidence 401, the subject pre-hiring questionnaires are relevant to the Monell and supervisory 

liability claims alleged by Plaintiff in this case. The pre-hiring questionnaires shall be produced in 

full and maintained as “confidential” under the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 42).

B. Punitive Damages Discovery from Correctional Deputy Defendants [Dkt. No. 

144]: Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of the seven Correctional Deputy Defendants’ 

personal financial records for the purpose of punitive damages prior to resolution of their qualified 

immunity defenses is hereby DENIED based on the following. 

The Court finds that the Correctional Deputy Defendants have the right to raise the defense 

of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, and that the benefits of such immunity 

would largely be lost if they were required at this time to provide the type of personal financial 

information Plaintiff seeks for the purpose of proving punitive damages at trial. See Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 685 (2009) (“The basic thrust of the qualified-immunity doctrine is to free 

officials from the concerns of litigation, including “avoidance of disruptive discovery.”). 

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of the Correctional 

Case 3:15-cv-03226-RS Document 149 Filed 03/07/17 Page 2 of 3
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

Deputy Defendants’ personal financial records until such time as the District Judge has resolved 

their motions for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity.

C. Plaintiff’s Third Request for Production to CFMG Defendants [Dkt. No. 144, 

Exhibit B]: Plaintiff’s motion to compel production from Defendants CFMG and Fithian of 

documents sought in Plaintiff’s Third Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED in part 

and DENIED in part as follows:

Defendants CFMG and Fithian are to review RFP Set Three and Set Two and provide 

responses no later than 5 pm Monday, March 6, 2017. The court does not find that Defendants 

CFMG and Fithian have waived all objections to the requests.

This Order supersedes any rulings at the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2017

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03226-RS Document 149 Filed 03/07/17 Page 3 of 3