Valenzuela v. Calexico, City of et al, No. 3:2014cv00481 - Document 26 (S.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiff's 17 Motion to Compel Discovery. Court finds the contested discovery requests are not relevant to the claims in Pla's Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis on 3/4/2015. (jah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Valenzuela v. Calexico, City of et al Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 MARIANO VALENZUELA, Case No. 14-cv-481-BAS-PCL 14 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: 15 16 17 18 19 v. CITY OF CALEXICO, SERGEANT FRANK URIARTE, OFFICER PETER J. WEST, OFFICER VICTOR FLORES, OFFICER CARLOS RAMIREZ, Chief of Police POMPEYO TABAREZ, Former Chief of Police JIM NEUJAHR, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY [Doc. 17] 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 I. INTRODUCTION Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed on January 27, 2015 pursuant 25 to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 37(a)(1). (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff seeks to compel the 26 Defendants to: (1) respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 11 and 12; (2) comply 27 with Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, Set One, No. 31; and (3) respond to 28 Plaintiff’s requests for admissions, Set One, Nos. 19 through 31. (Id.) Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Court has read and considered all of the documents filed in connection with this 2 motion, including Plaintiff’s moving papers (Doc. 17), Plaintiff’s exhibits (Docs. 17-1 through 3 17-5), and supporting declaration of Brody McBride (Doc. 17-1); Defendants’ Opposition (Doc. 4 21), objections to Mr. McBride’s declaration (Doc. 21-1), and Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. 5 21-2); and Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 24). As discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 6 Motion to Compel. 7 8 II. BACKGROUND This case arises from the alleged illegal arrest of the Plaintiff, Mr. Valenzuela, and the 9 use of excessive force during that arrest by Defendants Ramirez and Flores on June 11, 2013. 10 (Doc. 1, at 6-9.) Plaintiff’s causes of action arising from this incident include: (1) false arrest and 11 imprisonment; (2) battery; (3) negligence; (4) unlawful seizure, arrest, and detention; (5) 12 unlawful entry into home; (6) use of excessive force; (7) a claim against Defendant City of 13 Calexico under Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); (8) 14 failure to properly train; (9) failure to supervise and discipline; and (10) violations of the Bane 15 Act, California Civil Code §§ 52.1 and 52. (Id.) 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 A. Standard on Motion to Compel 18 Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enables the propounding party to bring a 19 motion to compel responses to discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B). The party opposing 20 discovery bears the burden of resisting disclosure. Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 299 21 (C.D.Cal.1992). Additionally, the moving party carries the burden of informing the court: (1) 22 which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel; (2) which of the defendants’ 23 responses are disputed; (3) why the responses are deficient; (4) the reasons defendants’ 24 objections are without merit; and (5) the relevance of the requested information to the 25 prosecution of his action. See, e.g., Brooks v. Alameida, No. CIV S–03–2343–JAM–EFB P, 26 2009 WL 331358, at *2 (E.D.Cal. Feb.10, 2009) (“Without knowing which responses plaintiff 27 seeks to compel or on what grounds, the court cannot grant plaintiff's motion.”); Ellis v. Cambra, 28 No. CIV 02–05646–AWI–SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D.Cal. Mar.27, 2008) (“Plaintiff 14-cv-481-BAS-PCL 2 1 must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of his motion to compel, and, for 2 each disputed response, inform the court why the information sought is relevant and why 3 Defendant's objections are not justified.”). Williams v. Adams, 105-CV-00124AWISMSPC, 4 2009 WL 1220311 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2009). Additionally, a litigant may not file suit in order to 5 “use discovery as the sole means of finding out whether [she has] a case.” Szabo Food Serv. Inc. 6 v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1083 (7th Cir.1989). 7 Lastly, when deciding whether to grant a motion to compel response to discovery request 8 or interrogatory, the court considers the prior efforts of the parties to resolve the dispute, the 9 relevance of the information sought, and the burden or expense of production. Barnes v. D.C., 10 289 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2012). 11 B. Relevance 12 It is well established that a party may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 13 matter that is relevant to any claim or defense. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need 14 not be admissible at trial so long as the discovery appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to 15 the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Relevance is construed broadly to include any matter 16 that bears on, or reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that may be 17 in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d 18 253 (1978) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)) 19 (footnote omitted). However, liberal discovery does not mean unlimited discovery, 20 Oppenheimer, 437 U.S. at 351–52, and Rule 26 vests the trial judge with broad discretion to 21 tailor discovery narrowly and dictate its sequence. CrawfordEl v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598, 118 22 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998). District courts have broad discretion to determine 23 relevancy for discovery purposes. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002). 24 On August 22, 2014, Plaintiff served Defendants with discovery requests, Set One. (Doc. 25 17-1, “Declaration of Brody McBride,” ¶3.)1/ On October 3, 2014, Defendants responded to Set 26 1. The Court has no original copy of Plaintiff’s discovery requests, Set One, to verify this date. The interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions 28 themselves are produced for the Court, in full, only through Defendant’s Responses. (Docs. 17-3; 17-4; 17-5.) 27 14-cv-481-BAS-PCL 3 1 One and objected to Interrogatories Nos. 11 and 12, Request for Production of Documents No. 2 31, and Requests for Admissions, Nos. 19, 23, and 28, as irrelevant. (Id. at 9-10.) Interrogatories 3 11 and 12 present the following requests: 4 11. State any and all reasons why CPD Sergeant German Duran approached Plaintiff while Plaintiff was in Alex Rivera Park on May 23, 2014. 5 6 7 12. If CPD Chief Pompeyo Tavarez and CITY employee Nick Servin have ever had any conversations in which Plaintiff’s name was mentioned, please state the content of any and all such conversations, including any facts pertaining to Plaintiff or the mention of Plaintiff’s name. 8 (Doc. 17-3, at 9.) Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No. 31 states: 9 10 31. Please produce any and all DOCUMENTS relating to any calls or reports received by the CPD that people were having sex in Alex Rivera Park on May 23, 2014. 11 (Doc. 17-4, at 14.) Lastly, Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions, Nos. 19, 23, and 28, state: 12 19. Admit that on the morning of May 23, 2014, CPD sergeant German Duran approached Plaintiff while Plaintiff was in Alex Rivera Park. 13 14 23. Admit that on or about June 20, 2014, CPD Chief Pompeyo Tavarez and Officer C. Gonzalez met with CITY employee Nick Servin. 28. Admit that after CPD Chief Pompeyo Tavarez and officer C. Gonzalez met with CITY employee Nick Servin on or about June 20, 2014, Mr. Servin instructed CITY employee Nick Fenly to write a reprimand to Plaintiff. 16 (Doc. 17-5, at 8-10.) 17 Defendant provided identical responses to interrogatories 11 and 12, request for 18 production of documents No. 31, and request for admissions Nos. 19 and 23, which read: 19 Objection. This [request] seeks information which is neither relevant to any claim or defense, nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. 20 15 21 (Doc. 17-3, at 9; Doc. 17-4, at 14; Doc. 17-5, at 8-10.) Defendant’s response to Request for 22 Admission No. 28 presents a relevance objection as well, but also objects to the form of the 23 request for admission as compound. (Doc. 17-5, at 10-11.) 24 Defendants’ responses are effectively boilerplate, if not marginally better, and their 25 objections should have been argued with specificity. See Walker v. Lakewood Condo. Owners 26 Ass’n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 587 (C.D.Cal.1999) (“Boilerplate, generalized objections are inadequate 27 and tantamount to not making any objection at all.”) However, Defendants have elaborated on 28 their relevance argument in their opposition, and the Court will consider that argument here. See 14-cv-481-BAS-PCL 4 1 Calderon v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 290 F.R.D. 508, 516 n. 4 (D. Idaho 2013). 2 The Court agrees with Defendants that the alleged events of May 23, 2014 are irrelevant 3 to this action as pleaded. Indeed, “the complaint makes no claim of harassment or retaliation” 4 stemming from any incident other than the events of June 11, 2013. (Doc. 21, at 2.) The scope 5 of the complaint does not appear to contemplate any theory of ongoing harassment or retaliation 6 which makes post-event evidence relevant: “harassment” is mentioned only in relation to the 7 alleged events of June 11, 2013, and retaliation is not mentioned at all. (See Doc. 1.) While the 8 Court recognizes that “post-event evidence is not only admissible for purposes of proving the 9 existence of a municipal defendant’s policy or custom, but may be highly probative with respect 10 to that inquiry,” Henry v. Cnty. of Shasta, 132 F.3d 512, 519 (9th Cir.1997), as amended, 137 11 F.3d 1372 (9th Cir.1998), there are simply no allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint which suggest 12 the events on May 23, 2014 are relevant to the events of June 11, 2013. (See Doc. 1.) 13 Similarly, there are no allegations in the complaint which explain the nature, or even the 14 presence, of a prevalent custom or policy instituted by Defendants. To succeed on his Monell 15 cause of action, Plaintiff must prove, and thus allege, that his constitutional rights were violated 16 as a result of a widespread policy, practice, or custom that Defendants were aware of but failed 17 to correct. Monell, 436 U.S. 658, 694. In order to prevail on this theory of liability, Plaintiff must 18 prove more than just one, or two, or even three instances of similar constitutional violations 19 resulting from the widespread custom of the defendants. See Thomas, 604 F.3d at 303 (citing 20 Cosby v. Ward, 843 F.2d 967, 983 (7th Cir.1998). Further, “Plaintiff must demonstrate that there 21 is a policy at issue rather than a random event.” Id. 22 In his complaint, Plaintiff describes the underlying events as resulting from a “permanent 23 and settled culture, policy, and/or practice.” (Doc. 1, at 18-20.) However, Plaintiff makes no 24 allegations to suggest the events of May 23, 2014 are connected to his Monell claim by similar 25 constitutional violations, to wit, that the events of May 23, 2014 are an example of a particular 26 custom or policy that has a common thread with the underlying events. For example, Plaintiff 27 argues in his Reply that “It is difficult to imagine an act that demonstrates ratification,” of a 28 custom or policy within the meaning of Monell, “more clearly than [Defendants] harassing 14-cv-481-BAS-PCL 5 1 Plaintiff” on May 23, 2014, but fails to make clear what custom or policy is being ratified, and if 2 that custom is the same one that caused the underlying events of June 2013. (Doc. 24, at 3.) 3 Therefore, it is difficult to entertain this encounter as anything other than a random event. 4 Further, Plaintiff failed to allege or otherwise demonstrate that a constitutional violation, 5 similar or dissimilar to the underlying events, occurred on May 23, 2014. Plaintiff readily states 6 that, “Defendants did not arrest Mr. Valenzuela, nor did they issue Mr. Valenzuela any sort of 7 citation” on May 23, 2014. (Doc. 17-1, at 3.) The fact that no constitutional violation is alleged 8 to have occurred on May 23, 2014 makes that encounter significantly less relevant to a Monell 9 claim. “If a person has suffered no constitutional injury at the hands of the individual police 10 officer, the fact that the departmental regulations might have authorized the use of 11 constitutionally excessive force is quite beside the point.” City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 12 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S. Ct. 1571, 1573, 89 L. Ed. 2d 806 (1986). 13 At this time, the Court has nothing in the complaint or motion to compel on which to find 14 the events of May 23, 2014 are relevant to Plaintiff’s underlying action. The Court therefore 15 seeks to limit the scope of discovery to the allegations, claims, and defenses present in the 16 complaint. IV. CONCLUSION 17 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the contested discovery requests are not relevant 19 to the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Motion to Compel is DENIED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: March 4, 2015 22 _________________________ United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 cc: 25 The Honorable Cynthia Bashant All Parties and Counsel of Record 26 27 28 14-cv-481-BAS-PCL 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
