Opinion ID: 778366
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Motion to Compel Disclosure of Defendants' Use-of-Force Policies

Text: 104 We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. Mabe v. San Bernardino County, 237 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir.2001). As we have explained, `[b]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and its decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.' Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1305 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Sablan v. Dep't of Fin., 856 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th Cir.1988)). 105 The district court refused to order disclosure of Defendants' internal policies regarding the use of force against inmates. Plaintiffs urge reversal on the ground that any matter that reasonably can be expected to lead to admissible evidence is discoverable. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). 106 The disputed evidence was only minimally relevant to Plaintiffs' case. As the district court permissibly found after reviewing the policies in camera, there is a very small portion of those documents which might have some minimal relevance to the issues which have been placed before the Court. Because Plaintiffs suffered no prejudice from the denial of their motion to compel, they are not entitled to reversal on that ground.