1 - OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TERA HARRIS, No. 3:15-cv-00853-HZ

Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER

v.

CITY OF PORTLAND POLICE

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Tera Harris 

5430 SE 119th Ave.

Portland, Oregon 97266

Pro Se Plaintiff

//

Case 3:15-cv-00853-HZ Document 126 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 4
2 - OPINION & ORDER

David A. Landrum

Office of City Attorney

1221 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 430

Portland, Oregon 97204

Attorney for City Defendants

Jacqueline Sadker Kamins

Assistant County Attorneys

501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500

Portland, Oregon 97214

Attorney for County Defendants

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Before the Court is City Defendants’ motion pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure to compel a discovery response from Plaintiff. The parties certified that they 

have made good faith efforts to resolve this dispute and have been unable to do so. City 

Defendants claim that Plaintiff has submitted incomplete responses to their requests for medical 

records relating to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. City Defendants seek a court order compelling 

Plaintiff to provide a complete response to their May 10, 2016, First Request for Production. The 

Motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of several interactions that Plaintiff has had with law enforcement 

where she alleges, in relevant part, that Defendants used excessive force on her causing her 

injuries. On May 10, 2016, City Defendants submitted their First Request for Production which 

requested several forms of medical evidence including: “Copies of all medical reports, medical 

records, medical charts, hospital records or other medical documentation relating to the injuries 

claimed by plaintiff in the Amended Complaint.” Landrum Decl. Ex. 1, ECF 120. The First 

Request for Production also requested: “Copies of all pre-incident medical reports, records and 

Case 3:15-cv-00853-HZ Document 126 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 4
3 - OPINION & ORDER

chart notes relating to the examination or treatment of any part of the body which is now claimed 

in plaintiff’s Amended Complaint to be injured as a result of one of the three [of] the subject 

incidents alleged in the Amended Complaint.” Id. at 2. City Defendants claim that pages are 

missing from various medical records and certain medical providers were not included in 

Plaintiff’s responses. Mot. to Compel at 4, ECF 119. Counsel for City Defendants raised the 

issue of incomplete production with Plaintiff’s former counsel and Plaintiff once she proceeded 

pro se. Id. at 5; Landrum Decl. ¶¶ 13–14. Specifically, City Defendants sent several medical 

releases to Plaintiff in an effort to complete discovery and Plaintiff refused to sign the medical 

releases. City Defendants request that the “Court order Plaintiff to provide signed releases no 

later than January 30, 2017, in order to provide sufficient time for Defendants to obtain 

responsive documents before the April 4, 2017 trial date.” Mot. to Compel at 6. 

Plaintiff objects to the Motion, arguing that the requests for production are unduly 

burdensome and duplicative. Pl. Obj. at 2–3, ECF 124.

STANDARD

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move to compel 

discovery where the non-movant “fails to produce documents or fails to respond that inspection 

will be permitted — or fails to permit inspection — as requested under Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

34(a)(3)(B)(iv). Parties “may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is 

relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information for 

purposes of discovery is information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes.” 

Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted).

Case 3:15-cv-00853-HZ Document 126 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 4
4 - OPINION & ORDER

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that, pursuant to Rules 26 and 37, Defendants are entitled to complete 

responses to their First Request for Production. Plaintiff alleges that she was injured as the result 

of Defendants’ use of excessive force on her. The requested medical documentation related to 

those alleged injuries and is highly relevant to this case. Moreover, Plaintiff’s objections to the 

Motion are largely non-responsive and unsupported. Plaintiff’s assertion that that she has no preexisting injuries does not relieve her of her discovery obligations. Further, Plaintiff’s generalized 

arguments that City Defendants’ request is burdensome, cumulative, or duplicative are 

unsupported by her exhibits. Accordingly, the Court overrules her objections and orders Plaintiff 

to provide the signed medical release to City Defendants no later than February 20, 2017 .

CONCLUSION

City Defendants’ Motion to Compel [119] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to 

provide a complete response to City Defendants’ May 10, 2016, First Request for Production by 

providing the requested signed medical releases to City Defendants no later than February 20, 

2017.

Dated this day of ______________________, 2017. 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00853-HZ Document 126 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 4