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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JACKSON, A. JACKSON, a minor,

B. JACKSON, a minor, SHAWN YVETTE MARTIN,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF PITTSBURG, AARON L. BAKER,

individually and in his official capacity as Chief of

Police of the City of Pittsburg Police Department, G.

LOMBARDI, individually and as an Officer of the City

of Pittsburg Department (Badge #275), C. SMITH,

individually and as an Officer of the City of Pittsburg

Police Department (Badge #285), P. DUMPA,

individually and as an Officer of the City of Pittsburg

Police Department (Badge #291), WILLIAM BLACK

HATCHER, individually and as an Officer of the City

of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge #274), and

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01016 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

In this civil-rights action, plaintiffs move for leave to amend to add an additional

defendant, Officer Sara Spires, to the complaint. Plaintiffs do not seek to add any additional

claims. Defendant City of Pittsburg opposes the motion on the grounds that plaintiffs have

not been diligent in seeking leave to amend. For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs’ motion is

GRANTED.

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 51 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 5
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

STATEMENT

On March 9, 2009, plaintiffs Frederick Jackson, A. Jackson, B. Jackson, and Shawna

Yvette Martin filed the instant action against City of Pittsburg, Aaron L. Baker, Officer

Lombardi, Officer Smith, Officer Dumpa, Officer Hatcher, and Does 1 through 100. The

complaint alleges, among other things, that on March 30, 2008, plaintiff Martin was arrested and

subjected to unnecessary and excessive force by defendants who, ultimately, did not arrest her. 

At the time plaintiffs filed the complaint, they did not know the identity of the officer who

arrested plaintiff Martin because the police report did not reflect plaintiff Martin’s arrest nor

identify the officer plaintiffs now believe arrested her, Officer Sara Spires (Decl. ¶ 3). In fact, at

the time the complaint was filed, the only identifying information plaintiffs had in regards to the

officer who arrested plaintiff Martin was that the officer was female.

On June 5, 2009, defendants listed Officer Spires in their initial disclosures (Opp. 2). 

On August 3, plaintiffs served their first wave of discovery on defendants (ibid.). Plaintiffs’ first

set of interrogatories asked for the identity of each officer who was involved in the incident

(ibid.). Plaintiffs received defendants’ responses on various days in October (Br. 2). In response,

defendants listed ten officers, including, Officer Spires (ibid.). Defendants’ initial disclosures and

responses to plaintiffs’ interrogatories included only the capacity and surname of the persons

identified (e.g., Officer Lombardi, Sgt. Brown, etc.), making it impossible for plaintiffs to

decipher the gender of the individuals (Br. 4).

On November 4, 2009, plaintiffs’ counsel e-mailed defendants’ counsel requesting “the

identity of the officer who placed [plaintiff] Martin in custody” (Rooney Exh. A at 1). 

On November 12, defendants’ counsel responded, “I have spoken with Officer Spires. 

Without waiving any privilege, she does not recall placing anyone in a patrol car” (ibid.)

(emphasis added). This response notified plaintiffs for the first time that Officer Spires was

female (Br. 4).

On November 25, 2009, plaintiffs served a request for production of documents on

defendant City of Pittsburg (Br. 2) that requested a full-face, color photograph of each person

identified in its discovery response. The purpose of the request was to enable plaintiff Martin

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 51 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 5
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

3

to identify the female officer who arrested her. Defendant produced photographs of

Officer Lombardi, Sergeant Brown, and Officer Smith only (ibid.). At the time, defendant did not

have a photograph of Officer Spires and therefore, did not produce one of her. On December 30,

plaintiffs served a similar request for production of documents on defendants, but plaintiffs did

not receive a timely response (Br. 3).

On January 12, 2010, plaintiffs deposed Officer Dumpa who confirmed, for the first time,

that Officer Spires was the only on-scene, female officer (Br. 4). In February 2010, plaintiffs

received a photograph of Officer Spires (Reply Br. 3).

Plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain a stipulation from defendants to name Officer Spires in the

instant action failed. On February 3, 2010, plaintiffs filed this motion for leave to amend to add

Officer Spires as a defendant. Plaintiffs do not request to add additional claims.

ANALYSIS

Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend a complaint shall be freely given when justice so

requires, but Rule 15(a) does not apply when a district court has established a deadline for

amended pleadings under Rule 16(b). Once a district court has entered a case management order,

subsequent amendments are not allowed without leave of the Court, and any such modification

must be based on a showing of good cause. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294

(9th Cir. 2000). The good-cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might

supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s

reasons for seeking modification. If that party is not diligent, the inquiry should end.” Ibid.

(citation omitted).

The case management order of June 18, 2009, stated that leave to add any new parities or

pleading amendments must be sought by July 31, 2009. Given that the date to add new parties or

pleading amendments has passed, plaintiffs’ request for modification must be based on a showing

of good cause given the Rule 16(b) standard.

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 51 Filed 03/11/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Defendants argue that plaintiffs do not have good cause for delaying their amendment to

add Officer Spires to the complaint. They contend that plaintiffs were not diligent in seeking

their amendment for two reasons. First, defendants argue that plaintiffs were not diligent because

they, in their initial interrogatories, did not specifically ask for the identity of the female officer

who arrested plaintiff Martin. Defendants are correct in their assertion, but fail to acknowledge

that plaintiffs essentially did ask for the identity of the officer who arrested plaintiff Martin. 

On August 3, 2009, plaintiffs’ first set of interrogatories asked for the identity of each officer

who was involved in the incident. Such a request obviously included a request for the identity

of the officer who arrested plaintiff Martin. Defendants, however, only provided the title and

surname of the officers, which made it impossible for plaintiffs to determine the gender of the

persons listed. This appears to the Court to have been a deliberate tactic, namely to leave out

the first names and thus conceal the gender of the officers. So, plaintiffs were unable to decipher

which officers were male and which officers were female. This problem could have been

prevented if defendants answered plaintiffs’ interrogatories thoroughly by including both the first

and last name of the officers in either their initial disclosures or their responses to plaintiffs’

interrogatories. Hence, plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the identity of Officer Spires because

they did ask for the identity of each officer involved in the incident.

Second, defendants argue that plaintiffs were not diligent because they did not move for

leave to amend when they learned of Officer Spires’ identity on November 12 via defense

counsel’s e-mail. Defendants’ argument is imprecise. Plaintiffs, technically, learned of

Officer Spires’ identity on June 5, 2009 through defendants’ initial disclosures and again in

October through defendants’ interrogatory responses. Up until November 12, however, plaintiffs

did not know the gender of Officer Spires. When plaintiffs’ counsel e-mailed defendants’ counsel

asking for “the identity of the officer who placed [plaintiff] Martin in custody” (Rooney Exh. A at

1), defendants’ counsel responded, “I have spoken with Officer Spires. Without waiving any

privilege, she does not recall placing anyone in a patrol car” (ibid.). Defense counsel’s response

was vague and misleading. He neither answered the question nor provided information regarding

the arrest of plaintiff Martin. Due to his vague response, plaintiffs were left to assume that

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 51 Filed 03/11/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

plaintiff Martin was arrested by some other on-scene, female officer. On January 12, 2010,

plaintiffs learned through Officer Dumpa’s deposition that Officer Spires was in fact the only

on-scene, female officer. With this new information in hand, plaintiffs filed the instant motion

three weeks later. Given the less than forthcoming nature of defendants’ responses, plaintiffs

were diligent in seeking their amendment.

The record indicates that plaintiffs were sincere and reasonably diligent in their efforts to

attain the correct information, but were frequently misled by defendants incomplete, vague, and

misleading responses. Plaintiffs asked defendants to identify the individuals involved on the day

of the incident, but were only provided with titles and surnames. Plaintiffs asked for photos of

the ten individuals identified in defendants’ interrogatory response, but were only provided with

three photos. Plaintiffs even specifically asked for the identity of the officer who arrested

plaintiff Martin, but were only provided with the name of one officer who claimed not to recall

arresting plaintiff Martin. Furthermore, defendants supplied plaintiffs with a photo of Officer

Spires only after plaintiffs learned that Officer Spires was the only on-scene, female officer, and

even then, the photo arrived a month after plaintiffs’ revelation and three months after plaintiffs’

original request. Plaintiffs have been patient and, more importantly, adequately diligent in

seeking the correct information from defendants, and the amendment sought is vital to plaintiffs’

ability to obtain full relief. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. The answer

is due by all defendants by MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 51 Filed 03/11/10 Page 5 of 5