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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

ELIZABETH KARNAZES,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and DEBORAH

TITONE,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-0767 MMC (MEJ)

FURTHER ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

DISPUTES

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are three discovery dispute letters filed by the County of San Mateo and

Deborah Titone (collectively “Defendants”). (Dkt. ## 53-55.) Pursuant to this Court’s Order

Denying Plaintiff’s Request that the Court Consider Discovery Filings that Are Not in Compliance

with the Discovery Standing Order and the Court’s Previous Discovery Orders in this Case, (Dkt.

#66), the Court will not consider any responses to Defendants’ letters filed by Plaintiff Elizabeth

Karnazes (“Plaintiff”). Accordingly, after consideration of Defendants’ papers, relevant legal

authority, and good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS as follows. 

II. BACKGROUND

According to Defendants’ letters, the instant action arose out of Plaintiff’s February 22, 2008

appearance as a defendant in criminal court, where she filed a form seeking court-appointed counsel. 

(Dkt. #53.) The form contained a requirement that Plaintiff provide the court with basic financial

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 11
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

information. Id. At the hearing, the judge did not make an appointment of counsel and informed

Plaintiff that she would have to fill out a new form and provide financial documentation at a later

time. Id. At that time, Plaintiff asked if she could have the form back, but the judge said no. Id.

Plaintiff then asked if she could copy the form, but the judge again said no. Id. Plaintiff next asked

if she might have an opportunity to review the form, and the judge said yes. Id. Plaintiff then took

the form to the Clerk’s Office and told them that the judge authorized her to have a copy made. Id. 

The judge then sent her deputy, Defendant Deborah Titone, to the Clerk’s Office to retrieve the

form. Id. When Deputy Titone attempted to retrieve the form from Plaintiff, a struggle ensued. Id. 

On February 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed the present complaint. In her Complaint, Plaintiff

alleges that Deputy Titone, claiming to be acting on instructions from the judge, forcibly attacked

Plaintiff, threw her to the ground without justification, kicked her repeatedly, stomped on her back,

twisted her arm severely, and shouted at her in the hallway of the courthouse. (Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 9,

Dkt. #1.) Plaintiff further alleges that the County of San Mateo authorized, condoned, and/or

ratified Deputy Titone’s conduct. Id. at ¶ 10. 

On October 1, 2009, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney referred all discovery disputes in

this matter to the undersigned. (Dkt. #24.) To date, three Orders to Show Cause have been issued in

this matter based on Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the discovery process and to comply with

Court orders. First, Judge Chesney issued an Order to Show Cause on August 21, 2009 based on

Plaintiff’s failure to appear at a case management conference. (Dkt. #16.) In her response to Judge

Chesney’s Order, Plaintiff claimed that she missed the case management conference due to a

calendaring error. (Dkt. #18.) Judge Chesney then issued an order discharging the Order to Show

Cause, based on Plaintiff’s good cause showing. (Dkt. #19.) 

Next, the undersigned issue an Order to Show Cause on January 20, 2010 based on

Plaintiff’s failure to appear at a court-ordered meet and confer session. (Dkt. #39.) In her response,

Plaintiff cited the Notice of Unavailability of Counsel she filed on December 14, 2009, (Dkt. #34),

and stated that she was out of the country, unable to read or receive documents, and was unaware

that there was a meet and confer session ordered until she received the Order to Show Cause. (Dkt.

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 11
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

#40.) Counsel for Defendants filed a declaration in response, arguing that Plaintiff had

misrepresented the facts surrounding her unavailability notice. (Dkt. #41.) On February 5, 2010,

the undersigned, in an attempt to avoid “any he said, she said contentious developments that do

nothing to aid in the resolution of this case,” vacated the scheduled hearing on the Order to Show

Cause and ordered Plaintiff to contact counsel for Defendants within five days to schedule a meet

and confer. (Dkt. #42.) On February 12, 2010, counsel for Defendants filed a letter indicating that

Plaintiff had failed to contact him, in violation of the February 5 Order. (Dkt. #43.) 

Accordingly, on February 17, 2010, the undersigned issue an Order to Show Cause based on

Plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with her discovery obligations. (Dkt. #44.) On February 26,

2010, Plaintiff responded that she stated that she had left Defendants’ counsel multiple messages in

an attempt to meet and confer, none of which were returned. (Dkt. #45.) On March 1, 2010, in

discharging the Third Order to Show Cause, the Court found that Plaintiff had not accepted

responsibility for her failure to comply with discovery obligations and laid out guidelines for the

parties to follow. (Dkt. #47.) Regarding disputes that the parties were unable to resolve informally,

the Court ordered them to submit those disputes in compliance with the undersigned’s standing

discovery order. Id. However, Plaintiff subsequently failed to comply with the March 1 Order. 

Specifically, on March 17, 2010, the parties met and conferred regarding the disputes detailed below

and discussed drafts that Defendants had prepared for three letters. (Dkt. #53.) At the meet and

confer, Plaintiff informed Defendants that she would respond to their drafts the following day so that

the letters could be filed on March 19, 2010. Id. After two subsequent email conversations, Plaintiff

informed Defendants that she would not provide them her portion of the letters. Id. Thus, on March

24, 2010, Defendants filed three separate discovery dispute letters. (Dkt. ##53-55.) 

On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that she disagreed with Defendants’ letters

and would file her own letters by April 5, 2010. (Dkt. #56.) On April 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a letter

stating that she intended to file a letter detailing the inaccuracies contained in Defendants’ discovery

letters (Dkt. #57), which the Court struck based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the standing

discovery order (Dkt. #58.) Next, Plaintiff filed three discovery dispute letters in response to

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 11
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’ (Dkt. ##60-62), which the Court struck for the same reason (Dkt. #63). The following

day, Plaintiff filed an affidavit asking the Court to consider her discovery letters, again accepting no

responsibility for her failure to comply with the orders of this Court. (Dkt. #64.) The Court denied

that request. (Dkt. #66.) The Court shall now address each of Defendants’ discovery letters in turn.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Discovery Letter #1 (Dkt. #53)

Defendants’ first letter seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to provide them with a

computation of her damages, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26. 

Defendants state that they have propounded document requests and interrogatories designed to

obtain information regarding the facts underlying Plaintiff’s claim for damages, but argue that

Plaintiff has not provided any documents or responses to interrogatories which detail her damages,

nor has she provided a computation of her damages in her disclosures. 

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her damages arising out of the February 22, 2008

incident include pain and suffering and medical/health care provider treatment. (Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 13,

14, Dkt. #1.) However, in the damages section of her Rule 26 disclosures, Plaintiff states that she

“has not yet found an attorney to represent her and has not calculated her damages. When damages

are calculated the information will be provided.” (Ex. 1 at 2:13-16, Dkt. #53.)

Rule 26 provides that a party must provide, without a discovery request, “a computation of

each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party[,]” as well as documents “on which each

computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered. . . .” 

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Here, Plaintiff has not provided Defendants with any kind of

damage calculation. Although she is not required to provide an exact computation of damages in her

initial disclosures, Plaintiff must, at the very least, give Defendants and the Court some idea of the

amount of damages suffered. See Henry's Marine Service, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 193 Fed.

Appx. 267, 278 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, based upon the plain language of Rule 26, the Court

ORDERS Plaintiff to provide supplemental disclosures within thirty days of this Order. Plaintiff’s

disclosures shall include a computation of her damages as well as the documents or other evidentiary

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/11/10 Page 4 of 11
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

material upon which each computation is based. 

B. Discovery Letter #2 (Dkt. #54)

Defendants’ second discovery letter asks the Court to order Plaintiff to produce documents

responsive to Request for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 5-7, 16-20, 24-28, and 30. Defendants argue

that Plaintiff has produced no documents which relate to her damages claim, except some documents

relating to two incidents where Plaintiff was involuntarily psychologically hospitalized in the Fall of

2007. The RFPs at issue seek documents relating to Plaintiff’s alleged physical and mental injuries,

and financial documents such as tax returns and bank statements. Defendants argue that they are

entitled to the documents sought for two reasons. First, Plaintiff is claiming severe emotional

distress, out-of-pocket costs and loss of income due to the events which took place on February 22,

2008. Defendants maintain that documents responsive to the above requests will allow them to

evaluate Plaintiff’s damage and loss of income claims. 

Second, Defendants argue that documents responsive to the above requests are critical to

their defense. Defendants’ theory of the case is that Plaintiff lied on the form which she attempted

to copy in the Clerk’s Office, prompting her to repeatedly demand that the judge return it to her. 

Defendants maintain that documents responsive to the above requests may provide evidence that

Plaintiff did lie on that form and would help to explain her behavior and refusal to return the form. 

In her response to Defendants’ RFPs, Plaintiff objects to each and every one of the requests

as compound, complex, harassing, protected by attorney-client and work product privileges, vague,

ambiguous, overly broad, unintelligible, and overly burdensome. (Dkt. #54, Ex. A, Ex. B.) As to

RFP Nos. 5-7 and 16-20, Plaintiff responded that the documents sought are not within her

possession, custody or control, or have already been produced. (Dkt. #54, Ex. A.) As to RFP Nos.

24-28 and 30, Plaintiff responded that the requests seek information that is not discoverable, not

subject to production, and is privileged. (Dkt. #54, Ex. B.) 

Rule 26(b)(1) dictates that discovery requests are limited to unprivileged material that is

both relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence. A relevant matter is "any matter that bears on, or that

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/11/10 Page 5 of 11
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

6

reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case" and

is not limited to only those specific issues raised in the pleadings. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.

Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Rule 26(b)(1) further provides that relevant matter includes “the

existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible

things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter.” As

previously discussed, Rule 26 also provides that a party must provide, without a discovery request,

“a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party[,]” as well as

documents “on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and

extent of injuries suffered. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Finally, Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii)

requires that Plaintiff disclose a copy or the location and description of all documents and tangible

things that she may use to support her claims. 

1. RFP Nos. 5-7 and 16-20

RFP Nos. 5-7 and 16 seek documents that either support or contradict Plaintiff’s allegations

that she was harmed as a result of the alleged violence at issue in this case, that she incurred

damages for pain and suffering, that she is experiencing severe emotional distress, and that she

incurred damages for medical/health care provider treatment. (Dkt. #54.) RFP Nos. 17 and 18 seek

documents concerning medical care Plaintiff received before or after February 22, 2008 for any part

of her body which she claims was injured on February 22, 2008. Id. RFP No. 19 seeks all

documents concerning any medical health care Plaintiff received after January 1, 2000. Id. RFP No.

20 seeks copies of any personal injury lawsuit in which Plaintiff was a party. Id.

Here, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to production of documents responsive to

RFP Nos. 5-7 and 16-20. As discussed above, Plaintiff is required to produce documents in support

of her damage claims as well as materials which evidence the nature and extent of injuries suffered. 

Further, whether Plaintiff had suffered physical injuries or mental health problems predating the

incident at issue is relevant to her damages claims because such evidence would tend to affect the

amount of damages to which she would be entitled if she were the prevailing party. However, the

Court finds that RFP Nos. 17 and 20 are overbroad. RFP No. 17 seeks all documents concerning

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/11/10 Page 6 of 11
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

7

medical care Plaintiff received on or before February 22, 2008 for injury to any part of her body

Plaintiff claims was injured as a result of the incident at issue. As this request has no time limit, the

Court finds it appropriate to limit production to February 22, 1998, ten years prior to the incident

date, up to February 22, 2008. RFP No. 20 seeks copies of any personal injury lawsuit to which

Plaintiff was a party, but also provides no time limit. As this is overbroad as to time, the Court finds

it appropriate to limit production to February 22, 1998, ten years prior to the incident date, up to

February 22, 2008. Thus, the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to production of documents

responsive to RFP No. 20, dating back to February 22, 1998. Based on the foregoing, the Court

ORDERS Plaintiff to produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 5-7 and 16-20, as limited above. 

2. RFP No. 24

RFP No. 24 seeks production of documents identified in Plaintiff’s disclosures which she

plans to use at trial. (Dkt. #54.) Per the plain language of Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Court finds that

Defendant is entitled to documents responsive to RFP. No. 24. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS

Plaintiff to produce documents responsive to RFP No. 24.

3. RFP Nos. 25-28 and 30

RFP Nos. 25-28 seek all personal and business tax forms submitted by Plaintiff to the IRS

for years 2007-2008. (Dkt. #54.) RFP No. 30 seeks bank statements for any accounts controlled by

Plaintiff for the period of August 2007-August 2008. Id. Defendants contend that, because Plaintiff

is a sole practitioner, there is no other way to evaluate her loss of income claim than to review her

tax records and bank statements. However, Defendants state that they are willing to accept

alternative documents if they provide similar verifiable income information. 

“Where there are federal question claims and pendent state law claims present, the federal

law of privilege applies.” Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 2005); Fed. R.

Evid. 501. “Under federal law, tax returns and related documents do not enjoy an absolute privilege

from discovery.” Southern California Housing Rights Center v. Krug, 2006 WL 4122148, at *3

(C.D. Cal. September 5, 2006) (citing Premium Services Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511

F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir.1975)) (internal quotations omitted). However, there exists a public policy

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/11/10 Page 7 of 11
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

8

against unnecessary disclosure to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate tax returns. 

Premium Services Corp., 511 F.2d at 229. To balance the need for discovery with the public policy

favoring confidentiality of tax returns, courts apply a two-prong test. Southern California Housing

Rights Center, 2006 WL 4122148, at *3. “First, the court must find that the returns are relevant to

the subject matter of the action. Second, the court must find that there is a compelling need for the

returns because the information contained therein is not otherwise readily obtainable.” Id. (citing A.

Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 191 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Courts apply the same

two-part test to determine whether a party should have to disclose other financial information, such

as financial statements. Id. at *4. 

Here, the Court finds that Defendants’ need for Plaintiff’s tax returns and financial

statements for years 2007-2008 outweighs any privacy concerns Plaintiff may have. First, Plaintiff

alleges that she has suffered a loss of income as a result of the February 22, 2008 incident, so her tax

returns and financial statements are certainly relevant to the subject matter of the action. Second,

Defendants have a compelling need for the returns because Plaintiff has offered no documentation or

proof of her current or past income to substantiate her loss of income claim. Thus, the Court finds

that Defendants are entitled to Plaintiff’s business and personal tax returns for years 2007-2008, and

bank statements for all accounts controlled by Plaintiff for August 2007-August 2008. 

However, Defendants state that they are “willing to accept alternative documents that

provide similar verifiable income information.” Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED either to

produce the tax returns and bank statements discussed above or to produce alternative documents

that provide similar verifiable income information.

C. Discovery Letter #3 (Dkt. #55)

In their third discovery letter, Defendants request that the Court order Plaintiff to complete a

signed release pursuant to RFP No. 19 so that they may obtain her medical records. Defendants also

request that the Court order Plaintiff to supplement her responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, and

7. 1. RFP No. 19

First, Defendants state that they have subpoenaed Plaintiff’s mental health and medical

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/11/10 Page 8 of 11
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

9

records from Dr. Heitner, Plaintiff’s treating doctor as identified in her Rule 26 disclosures, and that

Dr. Heitner has not produced any documents in response. Defendants argue that they have

repeatedly asked Plaintiff to sign a release so that they may obtain copies of her records directly

from Dr. Heitner, but she has refused. Defendants ask the Court to order Plaintiff to provide a

signed release to Dr. Heitner so that these records may be obtained. 

In response to Defenants’ RFP No. 19, Plaintiff argues that it is compound, complex,

harassing, requests privileged information, is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, entirely

unintelligible, and unduly burdensome. (Dkt. #54, Ex. A.) Plaintiff further states that the requested

documents are not within her possession, custody, or control, but when they come within her

control, she will produce them. Id.

Defendants’ request is well-taken. Plaintiff alleges physical and mental injury as a result of

the February 22, 2008 incident, but has yet to produce documents or information to support her

claim. Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), Plaintiff is required to produce documents which evidence

her injuries. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: Defendants are to prepare a written

release form and submit it to Plaintiff within seven days following issuance of this Order. Plaintiff

is then ORDERED to sign the release and return it to Defendants within five days of receiving it. 

Defendants shall then submit the release to Dr. Heitner so that he may release the documents to

them. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit the signed release to Dr. Heitner within five days of

receiving it, but must also serve a declaration upon Defendants’ counsel attesting under penalty of

perjury that she submitted the release to Dr. Heitner as required under this Order. 

2. Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7

Next, Defendants take issue with Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7. 

These interrogatories ask Plaintiff to describe all current and future economic damages allegedly

incurred as a result of the February 22, 2008 incident, any symptoms of emotional distress she is

experiencing, and how she has attempted to minimize those damages. (Dkt. #55.) 

In her responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7, Plaintiff again objects to all as

compound, complex, harassing, requesting privileged information, ague, ambiguous, overly broad,

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/11/10 Page 9 of 11
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

10

entirely unintelligible, and unduly burdensome, in addition to objecting to the interrogatories as

calling for legal interpretations and speculation. (Dkt. #55, Ex. A.) Defendants request that the

Court order Plaintiff to supplement her responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7. 

Defendants’ request is well-taken. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging monetary, physical and

emotional damage. As previously discussed, Rule 26 provides that a party must provide, without a

discovery request, “a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party[,]”

as well as documents “on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the

nature and extent of injuries suffered. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). In order to proceed,

Plaintiff must inform Defendants and the Court as to what her damages are and what she anticipates

them to be in the future. Thus, Plaintiff’s objections to the above interrogatories are without merit. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement her responses to the above interrogatories within

thirty days following issuance of this Order. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS the following:

(1) Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 5-7 and 17-20, as

limited above;

(2) Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce documents responsive to RFP No. 24;

(3) Plaintiff is ORDERED either to produce the tax returns for years 2007-2008, and bank

statements for August 2007-August 2008 as discussed above, or to produce alternative

documents that provide similar verifiable income information; 

(4) Regarding Plaintiff’s medical records, Defendants are to prepare a written release form

and submit it to Plaintiff within seven days following issuance of this Order. Plaintiff is then

ORDERED to sign the release and return it to Defendants within five days of receiving it. 

Defendants shall then submit the release to Dr. Heitner so that he may release the documents

to them. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit the signed release to Dr. Heitner within five

days of receiving it, but must also serve a declaration upon Defendants’ counsel attesting

under penalty of perjury that she submitted the release to Dr. Heitner as required under this

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/11/10 Page 10 of 11
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

11

Order; and

(5) Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement her responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7

within thirty days following issuance of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2010

_______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 68 Filed 05/11/10 Page 11 of 11