Olfati v. City of Sacramento ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PARVIN OLFATI, 2:21-cv-00606-DAD-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed on May 17, 2023, is before the court, along with the 19 parties’ joint statement regarding the discovery dispute. (ECF Nos. 180, 183.) This matter is 20 appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing set to take place on this matter 21 vacated, and the motion to compel is denied. 22 This action arises from the seizure and arrest of plaintiff by defendant City of Sacramento 23 (“City”) police officers on May 9, 2020. In the operative Fifth Amended Complaint, plaintiff 24 brings claims alleging unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force under the Fourth 25 Amendment, claims alleging violations under the First Amendment, and state-law claims against 26 the City of Sacramento and its individual officers. (See ECF No. 88.) 27 The present motion involves plaintiff’s Request for Interrogatories, Set One, Request One, 28 with its seven parts (the “Interrogatory”). Through the Interrogatory, plaintiff seeks information 1 about the City police car that drove by her house 28 minutes before she was seized, including the 2 identity of the person in civilian clothes in the passenger seat of the car and the reason why the 3 person was in the car, among other information. (ECF No. 183 at 6.) 4 The City provided responses and two sets of supplemental responses. (ECF No. 183 at 7- 5 13.) The City’s first supplemental responses indicated Officers Gomez and Vue were in the 6 subject car and provided a list of locations where those officers were responding to calls with 7 corresponding time frames. (ECF No. 183 at 7.) The City’s second supplemental responses stated 8 that based on an “expanded” search for any patrol vehicles driving on 45th between T and S Street 9 from 7:30 a.m. to 8:10 a.m. on May 9, 2020, “the only vehicles found are [defendant] Officer 10 Robinet’s vehicle, [defendant] Officer Stanionis’ vehicle, and Officer Gomez and Vue’s vehicle.” 11 (Id.) 12 Plaintiff argues the City’s responses are not responsive to the Interrogatory because the 13 City did not identify the passenger wearing civilian clothes and because it is “simply not 14 plausible” that the car with Officers Vue and Gomez was the car that drove by plaintiff’s house 15 28 minutes before she was seized. (ECF No. 183 at 14.) Plaintiff argues the City’s responses have 16 placed “the same City Police car being on two streets at the same time.” (Id.) Plaintiff notes also 17 the City claims it cannot admit or deny that Officers Gomez and Vue were physically present at 18 the locations identified in the City’s Supplemental Response in response to plaintiff’s Requests to 19 Admit Numbers 115-116. (Id.) 20 Defendant argues the information sought is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to 21 lead to the discovery of admissible information. Defendant notes plaintiff’s argument repeatedly 22 refers to the Sixth Amended Complaint, but that the operative pleading is the Fifth Amended 23 Complaint, in which there is no conspiracy cause of action asserted. (ECF No. 183 at 15.) 24 Defendant argues it made great efforts to locate the requested information, and plaintiff simply 25 does not like the content. (Id. at 16.) Defendant argues the subject motion is untimely because, 26 pursuant to the scheduling order dated July 18, 2022 (ECF No. 98), “fact discovery is to be 27 completed by 6/1/23.” (Id.) 28 //// ] “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 2 || party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of 3 || the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant 4 | information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 5 || whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed R. 6 || Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Setting aside the asserted untimeliness of the present motion to compel, which 7 || plaintiff does not address, plaintiff does not meet the burden to compel further responses for other 8 || reasons. 9 At the outset, the undersigned notes plaintiffs motion for leave to file the Sixth Amended 10 || Complaint was denied on May 26, 2023.' (See ECF No. 185.) While stating the information 11 || sought about the passenger in civilian clothes is “obviously” relevant (ECF No. 183 at 5), plaintiff 12 | fails to acknowledge that her argument references a non-operative complaint containing causes of 13 || action not pleaded in the operative complaint. Moreover, plaintiff's argument that defendant’s 14 || responses are implausible based on the stated locations of the car with Officers Gomez and Vue 15 || amounts to a showing of mere distrust and suspicion by plaintiff, which falls short of 16 || demonstrating a fact-based deficiency sufficient to compel further responses. See, e.g., Lugo v. 17 || Fisher, No. 1:19-CV-00039-NONE-SAB-PC, 2020 WL 2770074, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2020) 18 || (in the absence of legal or fact-based substantive deficiencies, a party is required to accept 19 || responses that are facially legally sufficient). 20 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 7, 2023, hearing is 21 || VACATED and plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 180) is denied. 22 || Dated: June 1, 2023 / hice fr fA. ? CAROLYNK.DELANEY 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 || 8.Olfati21cev606.mtc4 27 | | Plaintiff has filed an administrative motion seeking clarification of the May 26, 2023, order which appears to indicate that plaintiff may again seek leave to file a further amended complaint. 28 | (ECF No. 186.)