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

ONITA TUGGLES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C08-01914 JCS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART JOINT LETTER

BRIEF REGARDING CAT AUDIO

RECORDINGS [Docket No. 116]

Discovery in this case closed in November, 2009. Summary Judgment was decided last

October. Plaintiff never propounded a request for CAT recordings involving the plaintiff. Rather,

as the court has commented previously in case management, plaintiff propounded many broad

discovery requests – many of them obviously and defectively overbroad. 

The CAT recording which plaintiff claims to have only recently discovered (regarding 5001

Union Mine Drive) came to light, at the latest, when recordings were publicly filed in Case No. C08-2301 SBA. Those filings occurred on December 4, 2009 (Bitter Declaration, Doc. #154) and

later when these recordings were criticized as incomplete on December 18, 2009 (Dang Declaration,

Doc. #195). Indeed, it is likely that those recordings were actually produced in that putative class

action in discovery at a much earlier date. 

Despite this background, it was not until February 16, 2010, plaintiff sought all audio

recordings of CAT officers (1) relating to plaintiff, and (2) produced in case number C-08-2301

SBA. Defendants produced the former, but declined to produce the latter. On March 8, 2010 the

parties filed a joint letter, in which plaintiff seeks the withheld recordings. 

The Motion to Produce all of the recordings is DENIED. First, discovery has long been 

closed and the time for Motions to Compel has passed months ago. Plaintiff was not diligent during 

Case 3:08-cv-01914-JCS Document 117 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

discovery. Instead of actually asking for audio recordings relevant to this case, she sought

overbroad categories of documents. Second, once she learned or should have learned of the

existence of the recordings, she was not diligent in seeking their production. The existence of the

recordings was disclosed within approximately a month of the close of discovery in this case (at the

latest), but plaintiff did not raise the issue with the court until three months later (four months after

the close of discovery). Even the category that plaintiff now seeks – all audio recordings produced

in the class action – is still overbroad. This case is not a class action and plaintiff has made no

showing that the audio produced in the class action is relevant to this case.

Defendants have agreed to produce all audio recordings of CAT officers relating to plaintiff

and to that extent the Motion to Compel is GRANTED. In addition, while the recording of the 5002

Union Mine Drive incident may or may not be relevant and admissible at trial, it should be produced

to plaintiff. The Motion to Strike is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2010

___________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01914-JCS Document 117 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2