Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01353/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01353-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

JOHN COBB,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

AND/OR TO REOPEN DISCOVERY 

(ECF No. 93);

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO QUASH 

SUBPOENA (ECF No. 114); and 

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO 

PRODUCE NONREDACTED FIELD 

INTERVIEW REPORT (ECF No. 120)

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff John Cobb filed a Motion for Sanctions and/or to 

Reopen Discovery. (ECF No. 93.) Defendants opposed the Motion. (ECF No. 98.) 

Related to Plaintiff’s Motion and addressed in this Order are Defendants’ Ex Parte 

Application to Quash Subpoena and for Sanctions and Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to 

Produce Nonredacted Field Interview Report. (ECF Nos. 114, 120.) For the reasons 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 125 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 8
2

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and/or to Reopen Discovery is DENIED, 

Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Quash Subpoena is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Ex 

Parte Application to Produce Nonredacted Field Interview Report is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se in a civil rights action related to his arrest for being 

under the influence of a controlled substance, seeks sanctions and/or the reopening of 

discovery based on Defendants’ alleged purposeful failure to disclose witnesses and 

produce documents. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have concealed the identities of a 

white male witness and a black male witness seated at a picnic table who observed 

Plaintiff’s detention. (Mot. at 5, 10, 14.) Defendants have maintained throughout 

discovery that the white male was undercover police officer Jason Zdunich and the black 

male was an individual that was detained and released at the time of Plaintiff’s detention. 

(Opp’n at 2; see also Pl.’s Ex. 14, Def. Calderson’s Interrog. Resp. at 19 (“We detained 

an undercover officer, Jason Zdunich, and an African American man after the African 

American male propositioned Officer Zdunich for sexual acts.”)) During discovery, 

Defendants tried to determine the identity of the black male in response to requests from 

Plaintiff, but were not able to determine his identity. (Pl.’s Ex. 21; Decl. of Stacy J. 

Plotkin-Wolff ¶ 6.) 

Plaintiff now argues that the white male subject of Field Interview Report 

2064694, whose name was redacted to protect his privacy, was the white male seated at 

the picnic table and not Officer Zdunich. (Mot. at 14.) The Field Interview Report 

identifies a companion of the white male subject named Derrick Cooper. (Pl.’s Ex. 8.) 

Plaintiff believes that Mr. Cooper is the black male witness. (Mot. at 14.) Alternatively, 

Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Cooper is the white male witness. (Mot. at 5.) Defendants tried 

to identify Mr. Cooper’s race by checking the DMV database and the database of persons 

who have been incarcerated, but Mr. Cooper did not appear in either database. (Decl. of 

Plotkin-Wolff ¶ 7.)

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 125 Filed 07/18/16 Page 2 of 8
3

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff subpoenaed Defendants, commanding production of a 

nonredacted version of Field Interview Report 2064694.1 (ECF No. 120 at 10.) Plaintiff 

subsequently filed an ex parte application with this Court, requesting the Court order 

production of the nonredacted report. (ECF No. 120.) In response, Defendants filed an 

ex parte application to quash the subpoena and request sanctions against Plaintiff. (ECF 

No. 114.)

In his Motion for Sanctions and/or to Reopen Discovery, Plaintiff also asserts that 

Defendants failed to disclose in a timely manner Defendant Ramiro Rodriguez’s Field 

Interview Report 2124723. (Mot. at 13.) He contends that this Field Interview Report 

should have been disclosed in February 2016 as part of Defendants’ Response to 

Plaintiff’s Request for Production, but was not produced until June 2016 when he 

requested it from the City Attorney upon realizing it had not been included in 

Defendants’ production. (Decl. of John Cobb ¶ 60-61.) Plaintiff asserts that the untimely 

disclosure has prejudiced his case because he would have deposed Defendant Rodriguez 

had Plaintiff known about Field Interview Report 2124723. (Id. ¶ 63.)

Plaintiff asks the Court to sanction Defendants by (1) entering default judgment, 

(2) dismissing their affirmative defenses, (3) instructing the jury that Defendants have 

concealed evidence and witnesses and that this infers that Plaintiff did not exhibit 

symptoms of being under the influence of a controlled substance, (4) instructing the jury 

that Plaintiff did not exhibit symptoms of being under the influence of a controlled 

substance, or (5) ordering the identification and production at trial of the white and black

male witnesses. (ECF No. 93-1 at 17; ECF No. 95-4 at 2.)

Defendants counter that Plaintiff’s Motion is completely unsubstantiated, and they 

seek attorney’s fees for the time spent responding to the Motion. (Opp’n at 7.)

 

1 The Court GRANTS Defendants’ request to take judicial notice of the fact that the San 

Diego Police Department (“SDPD”) is a municipal department of the City of San Diego. 

(ECF No. 114-1.)

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 125 Filed 07/18/16 Page 3 of 8
4

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and/or to Reopen Discovery

Under Civil Local Rule 26.1(a), the Court will not entertain “motion[s] pursuant to 

Rules 26 through 37, Fed. R. Civ. P., unless counsel will have previously met and 

conferred . . . in person.” The Scheduling Order repeats the requirement to meet and 

confer and mandates that “[a] failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a 

party’s discovery issue.” (ECF No. 55 ¶ 5.) These rules alone are reason enough to deny 

Plaintiff’s Motion. The parties did not meet and confer in person. (Decl. of PlotkinWolff ¶ 5.)

However, the Court will also address the merits of the Motion. In general, a 

pretrial scheduling order can only be modified upon a showing of “good cause.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P 16(b). The Ninth Circuit has held that in determining whether there is good cause 

to reopen discovery, courts should consider the following factors: “(1) whether trial is 

imminent, (2) whether the request is opposed, (3) whether the non-moving party would 

be prejudiced, (4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within 

the guidelines established by the court, (5) the foreseeability of the need for additional 

discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court, and (6) the 

likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.” U.S. ex rel. Schumer v. 

Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1526 (9th Cir. 1995), vacated on other grounds, 520 

U.S. 939 (1997). 

The Court’s authority to sanction a party for concealing evidence arises from its 

“inherent power to impose sanctions in response to litigation misconduct and from Rule 

37,” Lewis v. Ryan, 261 F.R.D. 513, 518 (S.D. Cal. 2009), under which sanctions are 

available against a party who “fails to provide information or identify a witness as 

required by Rule 26(a) or (e),” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Dismissal and default are only 

appropriate when circumstances evidence willful disobedience of court orders or bad 

faith conduct. Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 104 F. Supp. 3d 

1040, 1053 (S.D. Cal. 2015). To justify an adverse jury instruction, the spoliating party’s 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 125 Filed 07/18/16 Page 4 of 8
5

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

degree of fault and the resulting prejudice to the other party must be significant. Id. at 

1054.

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause to reopen discovery. 

Nor has he demonstrated any basis to sanction Defendants. Defendants redacted the 

Field Interview Reports to protect the privacy of the individuals detained pursuant to 

federal and state laws. At the time of their production in February, Plaintiff could have 

moved to compel production of nonredacted versions. But he did not. Now, four months 

after their production and weeks before trial, Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery and 

sanction Defendants for their alleged concealment of the white and black male witnesses. 

However, Defendants did not conceal these witnesses’ identities. They identified the 

white male witness as Officer Zdunich and attempted to identify the black male witness. 

Defendants even performed extra investigative steps to determine the race of Mr. Cooper 

but were unable to find him in two databases. 

As to Field Interview Report 2124723, the Court is not convinced that its untimely 

production has prejudiced Plaintiff. Plaintiff had four months to realize that a document 

he requested was (apparently) inadvertently left out of a production. He ultimately did 

receive the report. The document itself is similar in nature to the other Field Interview 

Reports and does not appear critical to the outcome of the case. Plaintiff’s argument that 

he would have deposed Defendant Rodriguez had he been aware of this report is not 

well-taken. Defendant Rodriguez was one of the arresting officers and has been a named 

defendant since this action began. While the Court does not question Plaintiff’s litigation 

strategy, the Court does not credit Plaintiff’s assertion that this report would have tipped 

the balance in favor of deposing Defendant Rodriguez.

Plaintiff has not been diligent in seeking the discovery he now desires. Granting 

his motion would delay this case and prejudice Defendants. Moreover, the facts do not 

demonstrate litigation misconduct from Defendants or a failure to comply with the 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 125 Filed 07/18/16 Page 5 of 8
6

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

Federal Rules governing discovery. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Sanctions and/or to Reopen Discovery.2

II. Ex Parte Applications Related to Field Interview Report 2064694

Consistent with its reasoning above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte 

application to order production of the report and GRANTS Defendants’ ex parte 

application to quash the subpoena. Plaintiff’s attempt to subpoena Defendants violates 

the deadlines established in the Scheduling Order and is an end-run around the discovery 

rules. A subpoena duces tecum under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 issues to a non-party, while 

parties must use Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 to compel production of documents from one another. 

See Marti v. Baires, No. 08-cv-653, 2012 WL 2029720, at *26 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2012); 

Slama v. City of Madera, No. 08-cv-810, 2011 WL 6100511, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 

2011). “Pro se or not . . . this is a civil action to which the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure apply.” Marti, 2012 WL 2029720, at *3. Plaintiff had four months to seek a 

 

2 Plaintiff also asks this Court to take judicial notice of certain filings in four unrelated 

cases. (ECF No. 93-2.) Defendants oppose the request. (ECF No. 99.) A court “may 

take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial 

system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” United States ex 

rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 

1992). Plaintiff uses these filings to try to prove an over-arching conspiracy within the 

San Diego Police Department to cover-up civil rights violations perpetrated by its patrol 

officers. (ECF No. 93-1 at 3-4, 8-9.) Although Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim against 

Defendants Calderson and Rodriguez remains, the Court has already found that “there are 

no facts to indicate the City’s . . . involvement” in the incident. (ECF No. 42 at 6.) 

Therefore, the Court is not convinced that the filings bear a direct relation to the matters 

at issue in this case. Furthermore, Plaintiff uses the filings for the validity or veracity of 

their contents, which is improper. United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 

964, 974 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (“While the authenticity and existence of a particular order, 

motion, pleading or judicial proceeding, which is a matter of public record, is judicially 

noticeable, veracity and validity of its contents (the underlying arguments made by the 

parties, disputed facts, and conclusions of applicable facts or law) are not.”). Thus, 

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DENIED without prejudice.

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 125 Filed 07/18/16 Page 6 of 8
7

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

nonredacted version of the report or compel its production. He chose not to do so until 

now, only a few weeks before trial. The Court will not indulge such a delayed request.

III. Defendants’ Request for Sanctions and Attorney’s Fees

Defendants seek sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s 

Scheduling Order and discovery rules, as well as attorney’s fees for the time spent 

responding to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and/or to Reopen Discovery. (ECF No. 98 

at 7, ECF No. 114 at 6-7.) 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules permit a court to 

sanction a party in numerous ways. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 16(f), 37; CivLR 83.1. 

Federal courts also have inherent power to sanction a party and assess attorney’s fees 

when a party has willfully disobeyed a court order or acted in bad faith. See, e.g., 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991). Sanctions may serve either 

remedial and compensatory purposes or punitive and deterrent purposes. Falstaff 

Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 783 (9th Cir. 1983).

Pro se plaintiffs, like Plaintiff Cobb here, are given special solicitude, and courts 

should be cautious in sanctioning their conduct. See Adams v. Nankervis, 902 F.2d 1578 

(9th Cir. 1990). The Court acknowledges that “what is objectively reasonable for a pro 

se litigant and an attorney may not be the same.” Kennar v. Kelly, No. 10-cv-2105, 2011 

WL 2116997, at *9 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2011). Therefore, the Court presently declines to

sanction Plaintiff and order an award of attorney’s fees to Defendants. However, the 

Court strongly cautions Plaintiff against continuing to defy the Court’s Scheduling Order, 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Civil Local Rules of the Southern District

of California. Defendants may renew their request at the close of litigation, and the issue 

can then be briefed in full. Thus, Defendants’ request is DENIED without prejudice.

IV. Conclusion

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and/or to Reopen Discovery. 

(ECF No. 93.) The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Quash 

Subpoena and DENIES Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Produce Nonredacted Field 

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 125 Filed 07/18/16 Page 7 of 8
8

3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA

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

Interview Report. (ECF Nos. 114, 120.) The Court DENIES Defendants’ requests for 

sanctions and attorney’s fees without prejudice. (ECF Nos. 98, 114.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-01353-BEN-JMA Document 125 Filed 07/18/16 Page 8 of 8