Although there is a narrow exception to this rule for circumstances in which the impeachment evidence would render a witness's testimony "totally incredible" and that witness's testimony "provided the only evidence of an essential element of the government's case," see United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 825 (9th Cir. 1992), the court concludes that Officer Nelson's disciplinary history does not rise to that level. See, e.g., United States v. Burleson, No. 2:16-CR-46-GMN-PAL, 2017 WL 3174903, at *3 (D. Nev. July 26, 2017) (concluding that evidence regarding arrest of testifying law enforcement officer did not warrant a new trial because "it is apparent that even if relevant, this evidence would merely impeach [the officer's] credibility rather than independently support some aspect of the defense").