Ramirez v. Zimmerman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JAIRO CERVANTES, et al., CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS: 9 Plaintiffs, Case No. 17-cv-1230-BAS-AHG 10 v. Case No. 18-cv-1062-BAS-AHG 11 SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN, et al., MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT 12 RECORD FOR SUMMARY Defendants. JUDGMENT MOTIONS 13 [ECF No. 163] 14 BRYAN PEASE, 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Supplement the Record on Summary 21 Judgment (“Motion”) with the bodyworn camera (BWC) footage of three officers—totaling 22 18 videos and nine hours of footage—that “show the entire three-hour span from the time 23 the unlawful assembly was declared . . . to the final arrests . . . from three different angles.” 24 (Mot. at 4, ECF No. 163.) Plaintiffs seek to belatedly supplement the record because, they 25 allege, the City “repeatedly and steadfastly refused to provide the videos in a form that 26 could be lodged with the Court[,]” requiring Plaintiffs’ counsel to review the footage 27 himself and to purchase special software to record the videos in order to provide them to 28 the Court on summary judgment. (Mot. at 3–4.) The City maintains that although it 1 “offered to download specific videos upon request[,]” Plaintiffs’ counsel never made such 2 requests. (Opp’n to Mot. at 3, ECF No. 164.) 3 Upon review of the Motion briefings, the summary judgment motions previously 4 submitted by the parties, and the evidentiary record, the Court finds this supplemental 5 evidence necessary to resolve the issues on summary judgment. As best can be understood 6 by the Court, a key dispute on summary judgment is whether the circumstances after the 7 declaration of the unlawful assembly on May 27, 2016 created a lawful justification for 8 Defendants’ dispersal efforts and ultimate arrests of Plaintiffs, which underlie most, if not 9 all, causes of action remaining in this case.1 Where there is video footage of disputed facts, 10 the Court is obligated to review it. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007) (holding 11 that courts, when faced with a “version of events . . . so utterly discredited by the record,” 12 the Supreme Court instructs lower courts to not rely on “such visible fiction” and “view[ ] 13 the facts in the light depicted by the videotape”); see also Duclos v. Tillman, No. 14-CV- 14 149-BAS (KSC), 2016 WL 8672917, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2016) (“[T]he existence of 15 unambiguous video footage can alter how the district court assesses the facts of the case.”) 16 (citing Scott). 17 Defendants object to the admissibility of the BWC videos on the basis that “[t]here 18 is no authentication provided and no foundation laid for the videos by the officers who took 19 the videos.” (Opp’n to Mot. at 5, ECF No. 164.) However, because Defendants provided 20 this footage to Plaintiff in response to discovery requests, the footage is self-authenticating. 21 See Barefield v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ., Bakersfield, 500 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 22 1257–58 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (“[A] party may authenticate a document by virtue of the fact the 23 document was produced in discovery ‘when the party identifies who produced the 24 document, or if the party opponent admits to having produced it.’”) (quoting Orr v. Bank 25 of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 777–78 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also Gogue v. City of Los 26 27 1 Defendants also identify the period from the declaration of the unlawful assembly to Plaintiffs’ arrests as the relevant time period during which the claims in this case purportedly accrued. (See Mem. of P. & 28 1 || Angeles, No. CV 09-02610 DMG (EX), 2010 WL 11549706, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 15. 2 |}2010). Defendants do not contest the authenticity of the footage, just Plaintiffs’ failure tc 3 authenticate it properly. This is insufficient to exclude the footage from consideration or 4 ||summary judgment. See Maljack Prods., Inc. v. GoodTimes Home Video Corp., 81 F.3c 5 11881, 889 n.12 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming lower court’s consideration of documents, 6 authentication objection of defendant, where defendant produced the documents and dic 7 ||not challenge their authenticity); see also Salkin v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 835 F. Supp 8 || 2d 825, 828 (C.D. Cal. 2011), aff'd sub nom. Salkin v. USAA Life Ins. Co., 544 F. □□□□ 9 (9th Cir. 2013). 10 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 163). The Court wil 11 allow Defendants to lodge additional footage in response.” However, the Court wil. 12 ||not review exorbitant amounts of footage. It is the parties’ obligation to identify the 13 || particular parts of the evidentiary to support their motions for summary judgment. It is not 14 district court’s responsibility to scour voluminous records to find evidentiary support fo1 15 ||either parties’ position. See Keenan vy. Allen, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (the court 16 not obligated “to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact’). 17 Thus, both parties are ORDERED, by July 8, 2020, to submit BWC footage anc 18 ||/identify the precise intervals of time in each video that supports specific arguments in thei 19 ||briefs. There is little doubt that some or a substantial portion of the BWC footage is 20 ||needlessly cumulative. Thus, the intervals cited by the parties shall not exceed two hours 21 ||each. The parties shall describe of the events reflected in each video clip, and the relevance 22 || of those events to specific claims. If a party does not sufficiently explain the relevance ot 23 ||a clip to a cause of action, the Court will not consider it on summary judgment. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. ) 25 || DATED: June 23, 2020 ( yi A A (Light. 6 26 United States District Judge 27 |)? Defendants request to lodge additional footage, arguing that Plaintiffs’ counsel “cherrypicked” 18 out of 28 || Cout's mandate in Seow v. Harris, $50 US. 372 (2007), the Cour grants Defendants request.