Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01017/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01017-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Fresno
Defendant
Gabriel Rodriguez
Plaintiff
Rebecca Rodriguez
Plaintiff
Marcus Tafoya
Defendant

Document Text:

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

GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv1017 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Document 24)

Plaintiffs Gabriel and Rebecca Rodriguez (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant motion to compel

production of documents and responses to interrogatories on March 10, 2006. The motion was

heard on March 31, 2006, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 

Kenneth W. Brakebill appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. James Arendt appeared on behalf of

Defendants City of Fresno (“City”) and Fresno Police Officer Marcus Tafoya (“Officer Tafoya”).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed their civil rights complaint on August 5, 2005, against the City and Officer

Tafoya (collectively “Defendants”). Officer Tafoya is sued individually and in his official

capacity. Plaintiffs’ allegations arise out of their arrests on March 5, 2005. They allege causes of

action for: (1) violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments based on their false arrests

and the unreasonable use of force, including allegations that the City has a policy, pattern,

practice and custom of arresting individuals by using improper means (excessive force), of

detaining individuals without probable cause, and of condoning or encouraging the

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 8
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

 Defendants allege that David Rendon, Jr., and Lawrence Rendon assaulted Officer Tafoya. David 1

Rendon, Jr., has filed a civil rights action in this Court based on these events, and the cases have been consolidated

for discovery purposes only. 

2

unconstitutional conduct of the officers; (2) assault and battery; (3) false arrest and

imprisonment; and (4) negligence.

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel on March 10, 2006, and seek to compel

production of documents and responses to interrogatories served in November 2005. The parties

filed their Joint Statement on March 27, 2006.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs attended a party hosted by a Fresno couple on the

evening of March 5, 2005. Plaintiffs were inside the private residence with family and friends

when Officer Tafoya “ran unannounced through the front doorway of the residence waving his

baton in the air and shouting at the guests.” Complaint, at 2. Officer Tafoya approached Gabriel

and began striking him, causing his “head to bust open and gush blood.” Complaint, at 2. 

Rebecca, his wife, covered him as he fell to the ground in an effort to protect him. Officer

Tafoya continued to strike Gabriel and struck Rebecca numerous times with full force. 

Without being informed of his rights, Gabriel was handcuffed and arrested, and taken to

the hospital for treatment. He was charged with resisting an executive officer and battery of a

peace officer. Rebecca was also handcuffed without being informed of her rights and taken to a

hospital for treatment. She was charged with battery, resisting arrest and fighting in public.

According to Defendants, on March 6, 2005, at 12:00 a.m., Officer Tafoya and Sergeant

Manfredi responded to a radio dispatched call of a loud party disturbance. When they arrived,

they saw approximately 20 people fighting and Sergeant Manfredi immediately requested

backup. Despite the officers’ verbal commands to stop fighting, the participants became more

violent and the crowd turned their anger towards the officers. Sergeant Manfredi was attacked

and had to hold the crowd back at gunpoint while he attempted to arrest his attacker. Officer

Tafoya assisted Sergeant Manfredi and was hit in the face and forced into the house by a large 1

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 8
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

group of people. Once inside the house, Officer Tafoya saw that someone had taken a chair and

pushed it under the doorknob so that nobody could enter.

When Officer Tafoya arrested David Rendon, Sr., Gabriel pushed Officer Tafoya and

struck him in the arms and head. Officer Tafoya attempted to strike Gabriel in the arm with his

baton, however, Gabriel ducked and was unintentionally hit in the head. Gabriel fell and stopped

fighting. Other individuals became involved and were arrested. 

As to the discovery requests, Defendants contend that they have produced all available

documents except for the Internal Affairs (“IA”) investigations related to the subject incident and

other instances where complaints of excessive force have been made. 

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

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

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/07/06 Page 3 of 8
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

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. DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE CITY’S INVESTIGATION OF THE

MARCH 5-6, 2005, EVENTS

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

explained that it was unclear whether documents were withheld and on what basis. Pursuant to

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

and/or identified the documents withheld, in response to Request for Production Numbers 14, 15,

17, and 22, and that these requests are no longer an issue. The fact that the Court was required to

undertake this inquiry, however, illustrates the inherent vice of the type of “boilerplate”

objections used by Defendants. Such objections are not only nettlesome because the

propounding party is left to speculate whether any documents have been withheld in reliance on

the objections, but are also of little use to the responding party in light of the provisions of

F.R.Civ.P. 34 which require the responding party to indicate whether or not production or

inspection of the requested documents will be permitted. 

Request for Production Number 27 seeks witness statements made to the FPD concerning

the events on March 5-6, 2005. As such statements are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendants

shall produce all witness statements, including those made in the context of IA investigations. 

However, to the extent witness statements were obtained solely in the course of any investigation

in response to the tort claim filed by Plaintiffs, or any other investigation undertaken by

Defendants’ counsel or agents since the inception of this litigation, the statements are protected

by the attorney work product doctrine. Defendants will not be required to list tort claim

information, except for statements percipient witnesses, in the privilege log. 

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/07/06 Page 4 of 8
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

As to Request for Production Number 29, Defendants shall produce the requested

information, with the exception of any investigation undertaken solely as a result of Plaintiffs’

tort claim or any other investigation conducted by Defendants’ counsel or agents since the

inception of this litigation. 

Finally, Plaintiffs’ motion regarding Request for Production Number 32 is denied, as the

request seeks only information relating to Defendants’ investigation of the tort claim and is

protected attorney work product, as discussed above.

B. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ARREST AND

DETENTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE MARCH 5-6, 2005, EVENTS

Request for Production Numbers 5, 18 and 23 seek metadata for documents regarding the

events of March 5-6, 2005. Although Defendants point to Exhibit K as responsive to these

requests, the document does not identify what changes were made to the documents. By way of

the declaration of Conrad Nerdahl, manager of the Police Information Services Bureau of the

FPD, Defendants estimate that it would take approximately eight hours to gather the requested

metadata. This amount of time is not unreasonable. Accordingly, Defendants must produce the

requested metadata.

Request for Production of Documents Numbers 3, 19, 24, and 31 seek electronic

documents relating to the events in question. As this information is relevant, Defendants shall

produce these documents to the extent they have them in an electronic format. This includes email communications, radio communications and unit-to-unit electronic communications. 

C. COMPLAINTS ABOUT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF SIMILAR MISCONDUCT

BY OFFICER TAFOYA AND SERGEANT MANFREDI

Request for Production Numbers 33 and 34, and Interrogatory Numbers 8 and 9 seek

information relating to allegations against Officer Tafoya and Sergeant Manfredi involving

excessive use of force, assault and battery, false arrest and imprisonment, entering homes without

just or probable cause, using a baton to strike individuals, or falsifying police reports. These

requests also seek any investigations into the allegations.

As to Officer Tafoya, this information is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and is therefore

discoverable. Accordingly, Defendants shall provide the requested information relating to

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/07/06 Page 5 of 8
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

Officer Tafoya, for the time period beginning with the start of his employment with the FPD

through to the present. Henry v. County of Shasta, 132 F.3d 512, 518-519 (9th Cir. 1997)

(holding that post-event evidence is not only admissible for purposes of proving the existence of

a municipal defendant’s policy or custom, but is highly probative of that inquiry). This

information may be produced pursuant to a stipulated protective order. 

As to Sergeant Manfredi, the Court finds that complaints and investigations relating to the

falsification of police reports and the use of excessive force are relevant. Plaintiffs have alleged

that Sergeant Manfredi and Officer Tafoya acted together to falsify police reports, making

Sergeant Manfredi’s history of complaints/investigations regarding the falsification of police

reports relevant. Moreover, because Sergeant Manfredi was Officer Tafoya’s supervisor at the

scene, his history of complaints/investigations regarding the use of excessive force becomes

relevant. See eg., Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227, 229 (S.D.Cal. 1993). As a

supervisor, he likely set the tone for his officers’ actions and his history of

complaints/investigations of excessive force are therefore relevant. Accordingly, the Court

orders production of discovery related to complaints/investigations against Sergeant Manfredi for

falsification of police reports and use of excessive force, made in the past ten years. Again, this

information may be disclosed subject to a stipulated protective order.

Request for Production of Documents Number 34 specifically requests information

relating to prior IA investigations of complaints against Officer Tafoya and Sergeant Manfredi. 

Within the above parameters, such information is discoverable. This includes the conclusions

and recommendations of prior IA investigations which are relevant to the Monell issues raised

in the complaint.

However, to the extent that this request seeks conclusions and recommendation of an IA

investigation concerning the events at issue here, the Court will not require disclosure. First, the

conclusions and recommendations, which exist only in the unlikely event the investigation is

completed, are not relevant. Second, the jury should decide this case based on its analysis of

witness credibility and the facts presented rather than another’s opinion of the events in question.

///

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/07/06 Page 6 of 8
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

 D. TRAINING AND SUPERVISION RECORDS OF SERGEANT MANFREDI

Request for Production Numbers 36 and 38 seek documents relating to the training and

supervision of Sergeant Manfredi and Officer Tafoya concerning the use of force and arresting

and detaining individuals. Defendants have agreed to produce Officer Tafoya’s supervision and

training records, as well as Sergeant Manfredi’s training records, pursuant to a stipulated

protective order.

The requests initially included logs or summaries that identified the extent to which

Sergeant Manfredi or Officer Tafoya were supervising others, or were being supervised by

others. Conceding that this could include insignificant notations in the personnel files of

numerous officers supervised by Sergeant Manfredi, Plaintiffs narrowed the request to include

only evidence that Sergeant Manfredi and/or Officer Tafoya was counseled with respect to these

areas or taught classes in these areas. These documents are relevant and should be produced. 

The information may be produced pursuant to a stipulated protective order if the officers’ privacy

rights are implicated.

E. DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION REGARDING ALLEGATIONS THAT

OTHER FPD PERSONNEL HAVE ENGAGED IN SIMILAR MISCONDUCT

Requests for Production Numbers 39 and 40 seek information regarding allegations and

complaints against other FPD personnel involving the use of excessive force and detaining

individuals without probable cause. Interrogatories Numbers 10 and 11 seek information relating

to any resulting investigations by the City. 

As written, these requests are overbroad. To the extent Plaintiffs offered to narrow the

request to officers at the scene, the requested information is irrelevant. While such discovery

may be proper in certain situations, it is not warranted here. Additional officers arrived to assist

Officer Tafoya and Sergeant Manfredi after the alleged incidents occurred. The background of

other officers, therefore, is not relevant because they were not critical witnesses to the events. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion as to Request for Production Numbers 39 and 40, and

Interrogatory Numbers 10 and 11, is denied, subject to renewal of the motion if further discovery

implicates other officers as witnesses.

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/07/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8

At the hearing, Plaintiffs offered to narrow these requests to Officer Tafoya and Sergeant

Manfredi. The Court has discussed the proper scope of discovery above, in Section C. 

F. THE CITY’S REFERENCE TO BUSINESS RECORDS IN RESPONSE TO

INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ reference to records in response to Interrogatories

Numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7. 

As to Numbers 1, 2, 5 and 6, Plaintiffs contend that they would like basic information not

included in the exhibits provided by Defendants. The parties have agreed to further discuss

Plaintiffs’ requests. 

Interrogatory Number 7 requests the nature of injuries and causes, including medical

treatment sought or received, sustained by each person of the City of Fresno as a result of the

events on March 5-6, 2005. Plaintiffs contend that although Defendants have provided

descriptions of the injuries by way of the event and police reports, they have not identified the

cause of the injuries and whether the injured received treatment. Because such information is

relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendants shall provide further responses to include any

additional information regarding the cause of the injuries and treatment. 

G. THE CITY’S PRIVILEGE LOG

Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ privilege log as deficient under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(b)(5) because it fails to describe any documents and does not explain why the

responsive documents are privileged. 

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ privilege log and finds it to be insufficient. All

communications relating to the incident must be included in the privilege log, except litigation

documents as discussed above. The log must list the document, a description of the document,

including when it was created and who created it, and the claimed privilege. Therefore,

Defendants shall submit a new privilege log to Plaintiffs within twenty (20) days of the date of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 27 Filed 04/07/06 Page 8 of 8