Opinion
20-cv-01148-JSW (AGT)
05-12-2023
MARIO D. GARDNER, Plaintiff, v. ALEX REILLE, et al., Defendants.
DISCOVERY ORDER RE: DKT. NO. 53
Alex G. Tse, United States Magistrate Judge.
The Court grants in part plaintiff's request to compel. Defendants must produce documents responsive to plaintiff's RFPs 11-13, as limited by this order.
RFPs 11-13 seek documents related to any complaints made against the defendants, related to any investigations involving the defendants, or evidencing sworn testimony given by the defendants. See Dkt. 53 at 2. All three requests have a ten-year time limit. See id.
The requests seek relevant documents. Plaintiff's excessive force and sexual-harassment claims arise under the Eighth Amendment and are subject to a “malicious and sadistic” standard. See Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2012). Evidence of “other acts” by the defendants may be admissible to satisfy this standard. See Henderson v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 05-CV-0234-VRW/WAF, 2007 WL 2938164, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007) (“The other acts evidence may be highly probative of the jury's determination of whether Deputy Prado acted ‘maliciously and sadistically.'”).
The ten-year time limit isn't overbroad. The events at issue took place in 2018. See Dkt. 36 at 1. Plaintiff essentially seeks five years of pre-event records and five years of post-event records. Records within those five-year periods shouldn't be too dated to lose their relevance.
The Court will limit the RFPs in the following way. The RFPs aren't limited by subject matter. Any complaints made against the defendants, even if unrelated to sexual harassment, sexual assault, or excessive force, would be responsive. Plaintiff hasn't convinced the Court that the RFPs, as written, are reasonably tailored to the facts of the case. The Court will require the defendants to produce responsive documents involving complaints, investigations, or testimony related only to sexual harassment, sexual assault, or excessive force.
IT IS SO ORDERED.