Opinion
22cv526-W(LR)
07-01-2024
AARON REEL, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF EL CENTRO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO INCAMERA REVIEW
Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
The undersigned held an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) on May 8, 2024, during which Plaintiff Aaron Reel and Defendant the City of El Centro (“the City”) disputed the relevance of personnel files and complaints against non-party police officers within the El Centro Police Department to the allegations in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (See ECF No. 92.) The City produced the disputed documents at issue for an in camera review following the IDC on June 18, 2024. For the reasons stated below, the Court ORDERS the City to produce a subset of the documents submitted for in camera review to Plaintiff's counsel.
The scope of discovery under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is defined as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
“Typically, the relevance standard is broad in scope and ‘encompass[es] any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issues that is or may be in a case.'” Yphantides v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 21-cv-1575-GPC-BLM, 2022 WL 3362271, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2022) (quoting Doherty v. Comenity Cap. Bank & Comenity Bank, No. 16-cv-1321-H-BGS, 2017 WL 1885677, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2017) (alteration in original)). District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for the purposes of discovery. See Estate of Serna v. Cnty. of San Diego, Case No.: 20-cv-2096-LAB-DDL, 2024 WL 942368, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2024). “Further, ‘[w]hen analyzing the proportionality of a party's discovery requests, a court should consider the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to the information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.'” Yphantides, 2022 WL 3362271, at *3 (citations omitted).
Some of the documents submitted to the Court for in camera review are relevant and proportional under Rule 26 to help establish the claims in Plaintiff's FAC. For example, although it is usually a “fact-intensive inquiry that varies depending on the case,” Howard v. Raytheon Co., No. CV 09-5742 ABC (EX), 2011 WL 13177257, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2011), the Ninth Circuit has held that plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases may rely on comparisons of similarly situated employees if such evidence supports an inference of retaliation. See Brown v. Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc., No. 2:19-CV-01921-KJM-AC, 2022 WL 2135340, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 2022) (citing Hawn v. Executive Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010). The documents submitted for in-camera review are relevant and proportional to the needs of this case as they related to allegations of disparate treatment compared to similarly situated officers. (See, e.g., ECF No. 20, First Am. Compl., ¶ 63 (alleging disciplinary action for conduct that would not normally result in penalties by similarly situated officers).) Accordingly, the Court finds that the documents relevant and proportional to the discovery sought in this case include those Bates-stamped: 1-45, 77-120, 121-124, 182-234, and 235-296. The City is ORDERED to produce those pages electronically to Plaintiff's counsel no later than July 5, 2024 . These documents may be produced to opposing counsel with the redactions discussed during the May 8, 2024, IDC, as well as those contemplated by the protective order in this case. (See ECF No. 42 at 1-11.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.