Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01017/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01017-7/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 RE PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Document 31)

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

production of documents on April 14, 2006. The motion was heard on May 12, 2006, before the

Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Anne Hunter 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

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 47 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 6
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

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

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 April 14, 2006 and seek to compel

production of documents served on February 23, 2006. The parties filed their Joint Statement on

May 9, 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 47 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 6
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 argue that they have already produced all

available documents related to the subject incident and other instances where complaints of

excessive force and falsification of reports have been made. Consequently, defendants argue

plaintiffs’ requests which seek, without limitation, the personnel files of Officer Tafoya and

Sergeant Manfredi in their entirety, are overbroad and not warranted. 

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. 

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 47 Filed 05/12/06 Page 3 of 6
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

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

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 AT ISSUE

The parties have categorized the requests at issue as follows:

1. All documents regarding any evaluations of Officer Tafoya and/or Sergeant

Manfredi as a result of a complaint for excessive use of force or for violent

conduct, including but not limited to documents identifying the circumstances

giving rise to the evaluation, any report of the evaluation, and any follow-up

assessment or recommendation (RFP Nos. 53 and 54);

2. All documents regarding Officer Tafoya’s and/or Sergeant Manfredi’s

employment history with the FPD, including but not limited to records of

positions held, promotions, any disciplinary actions, any suspensions, and any

intentions to terminate (RFP Nos. 55-56);

3. All documents regarding any background checks the City reviewed or performed

on Officer Tafoya pertaining to any use or alleged use of force or history of

violent conduct or aggressive behavior, prior to or during the course of Officer

Tafoya’s employment with the FPD (RFP No. 57); and

4. All documents regarding any background checks the City reviewed or performed

on Sergeant Manfredi pertaining to any use or alleged use of force or history of

violent conduct or aggressive behavior, prior to or during the course of Sergeant

Manfredi’s employment with the FPD (RFP No. 58). 

Defendants provided the following response to all six requests:

This request is objected to on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous and

overbroad with respect to “All DOCUMENTS.” This request is also

objected to on the grounds that these documents may be subject to the

attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine and protected

by Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1043, Penal Code § 832.7, the official

information privilege, as well as the individual officers’ rights to privacy. 

See attached Privilege Log and Declaration of Captain Patrick Rhames. 

Without waiving said objections and subject to a Stipulated Protective

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 47 Filed 05/12/06 Page 4 of 6
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

Order, responding party may produce discoverable portions of the requested

documents.

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

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

possession, which would be responsive to Request for Production Numbers 53 and 54. 

Consequently, these requests are no longer an issue. However, a specific response to these

requests so indicating is required. As this Court has previously cautioned, “boilerplate”

objections such as used by Defendants, all too often result in the unnecessary waste of resources

by the parties and the Court because there is no means of determining whether documents have

been withheld in reliance on the objections. 

Request for Production Numbers 55 and 56 seek documents regarding Officer Tafoya and

Sergeant Manfredi’s employment history. At the hearing, counsel clarified that the requests are

limited to personnel records or portions of personnel records regarding the officer’s employment

history (including but not limited to records of positions held, promotions, disciplinary actions,

suspensions and intentions to terminate) which reflect complaints regarding aggressive or violent

conduct, on or off the job; the use of excessive force; the detainment of individuals without

probable cause; false arrest and imprisonment; entering homes without just or probable cause;

assault and battery; using a baton to strike individuals; or falsifying police reports. With these

limitations, the documents are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and therefore Defendants shall

produce all documents responsive to Request Nos. 55 and 56, subject to the stipulated protective

order, within 20 days of this Order. 

Request for Production Numbers 57 and 58 seek documents regarding any background

checks the City reviewed or preformed on Officers Tafoya and Manfredi. At the hearing, counsel

agreed that the requests were also limited to documents which reflect the alleged use of force or

history of violent conduct, or aggressive behavior. With these limitations, Defendants shall

produce the requested information, subject to the stipulated protective order, within 20 days of

this Order. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 47 Filed 05/12/06 Page 5 of 6
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

B. THE CITY’S PRIVILEGE LOG

Plaintiffs once again 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 log must list the document, a description of the document, including when it was

created and who created it, and the claimed privilege. In producing the documents ordered

herein, Defendants shall submit a revised privilege log in compliance with this and the Court’s

prior Order.

C. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents is granted

in part. Defendants shall provide a further response to plaintiffs’ request for production of

documents, including a revised privilege log and production of documents, consistent with this

Order, within 20 days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 12, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 47 Filed 05/12/06 Page 6 of 6