Reel v. Johnson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON REEL, Case No.: 22cv526-W(LR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING 13 v. DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO IN- CAMERA REVIEW 14 CITY OF EL CENTRO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 The undersigned held an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) on May 8, 2024, 19 during which Plaintiff Aaron Reel and Defendant the City of El Centro (“the City”) 20 disputed the relevance of personnel files and complaints against non-party police officers 21 within the El Centro Police Department to the allegations in Plaintiff’s First Amended 22 Complaint (“FAC”). (See ECF No. 92.) The City produced the disputed documents at 23 issue for an in camera review following the IDC on June 18, 2024. For the reasons stated 24 below, the Court ORDERS the City to produce a subset of the documents submitted for 25 in camera review to Plaintiff’s counsel. 26 The scope of discovery under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is defined as 27 follows: 28 Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 1 that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues 2 at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ 3 relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 4 the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its 5 likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 6 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 8 “Typically, the relevance standard is broad in scope and ‘encompass[es] any matter 9 that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issues 10 that is or may be in a case.’” Yphantides v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 21-cv-1575-GPC- 11 BLM, 2022 WL 3362271, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2022) (quoting Doherty v. Comenity 12 Cap. Bank & Comenity Bank, No. 16-cv-1321-H-BGS, 2017 WL 1885677, at *2 (S.D. 13 Cal. May 9, 2017) (alteration in original)). District courts have broad discretion to 14 determine relevancy for the purposes of discovery. See Estate of Serna v. Cnty. of San 15 Diego, Case No.: 20-cv-2096-LAB-DDL, 2024 WL 942368, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 16 2024). “Further, ‘[w]hen analyzing the proportionality of a party’s discovery requests, a 17 court should consider the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 18 controversy, the parties’ relative access to the information, the parties’ resources, the 19 importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of 20 the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.’” Yphantides, 2022 WL 3362271, at 21 *3 (citations omitted). 22 Some of the documents submitted to the Court for in camera review are relevant 23 and proportional under Rule 26 to help establish the claims in Plaintiff’s FAC. For 24 example, although it is usually a “fact-intensive inquiry that varies depending on the 25 case,” Howard v. Raytheon Co., No. CV 09-5742 ABC (EX), 2011 WL 13177257, at *3 26 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2011), the Ninth Circuit has held that plaintiffs in employment 27 discrimination cases may rely on comparisons of similarly situated employees if such 28 evidence supports an inference of retaliation. See Brown v. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., 1 No. 2:19-CV-01921-KJIM-AC, 2022 WL 2135340, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 2022) 2 || (citing Hawn v. Executive Jet Memt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010). The 3 ||documents submitted for in-camera review are relevant and proportional to the needs of 4 || this case as they related to allegations of disparate treatment compared to similarly 5 || situated officers. (See, e.g., ECF No. 20, First Am. Compl., {] 63 (alleging disciplinary 6 || action for conduct that would not normally result in penalties by similarly situated 7 || officers).) Accordingly, the Court finds that the documents relevant and proportional to 8 discovery sought in this case include those Bates-stamped: 1-45, 77-120, 121-124, 9 || 182-234, and 235-296. The City is ORDERED to produce those pages electronically to 10 || Plaintiff's counsel no later than July 5, 2024. These documents may be produced to 11 opposing counsel with the redactions discussed during the May 8, 2024, IDC, as well as 12 || those contemplated by the protective order in this case. (See ECF No. 42 at 1-11.) 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: July 1, 2024 15 16 / L V7 Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28