Greer v. County of San Diego ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANKIE GREER, Case No.: 19-cv-378-GPC-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 13 v. DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE REGARDING 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR 15 Defendants. PRODUCTION (SET FOUR) NOS. 42-54 16 17 DKT. NO. 113 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery 21 Dispute. Dkt. No. 113.1 Plaintiff seeks documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for 22 Production (Set Four) (“RFP”) Nos. 42-54. Defendant County of San Diego (“the County”) 23 raises relevancy, proportionality, and privacy based objections to the RFPs. Id. For the 24 reasons set forth below, the Court overrules the County’s objections. 25 26 27 1 When referencing page numbers for documents filed with the Court, the Court’s citation refers to the page numbers assigned by the Court’s CM-ECF system. 28 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “[B]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery . . . .” 3 Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). “Parties may obtain discovery 4 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 5 proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Even after the 2015 6 amendments to Rule 26, “discovery relevance remains a broad concept.” Fed. Nat’l Mortg. 7 Ass’n v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, No. 14-cv-02046-JAD-PAL, 2016 WL 778368, at *2 n.16 8 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2016); see also Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd, 9 No. 15-cv-01735-H-RBB, 2016 WL 7665898, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2016) (“Relevance 10 is construed broadly to include any matter that bears on, or reasonably could lead to other 11 matters that could bear on, any issue that may be in the case.”) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, 12 Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350–51 (1978)). 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges when Plaintiff was booked 15 into San Diego Central Jail on January 31, 2018, he gave medical staff his prescribed 16 seizure disorder medication and informed them that he would suffer chronic seizures 17 without his medication. Dkt. No. 59 ¶¶ 29-31. Medical staff did not administer Plaintiff’s 18 medication, and did not enter either a seizure disorder alert or lower bunk assignment order 19 in the Jail Information Management System (“JIMS”) or otherwise communicate 20 Plaintiff’s medical condition and needs to jail staff. Id. ¶¶ 36, 38, 41, 43. 21 On February 1, 2018, after Plaintiff missed two doses of seizure medication, jail staff 22 assigned him to a top bunk, despite Plaintiff informing them of his medical condition and 23 requesting a lower bunk assignment. Id. ¶¶ 42, 44, 45-53. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff 24 suffered a seizure and fell from his top bunk to the concrete cell floor, which rendered him 25 unconscious. Id. ¶¶ 55-57. Jail staff failed to respond to Plaintiff’s cellmates’ intercom calls 26 and shouts for help, which delayed medical treatment. Id. ¶¶ 57-66, 69-71, 73. Plaintiff 27 continued to suffer “numerous clinical seizures” without receiving immediate emergency 28 medical care, which exacerbated his injuries. Id. ¶¶ 72-73. Plaintiff remained unconscious 1 for weeks and has a significant brain injury, which continues to impair his cognitive 2 functioning, memory, and speech. Id. ¶¶ 78-79, 81. Hospital records indicate Plaintiff 3 sustained facial fractures, a brain bleed, and respiratory failure. Id. ¶ 74. 4 Plaintiff’s SAC alleges the County and supervisory officials are liable for his injuries 5 because they acted with deliberate indifference by failing to train, monitor, supervise, and 6 discipline Sheriff’s Department personnel despite a known history of failures to: 7 (1) communicate, share critical medical information, and coordinate the care of seriously 8 ill inmates; (2) provide seriously ill inmates emergency medical care; and (3) properly 9 monitor seriously ill inmates. Id. ¶¶ 119, 120, 129-132, 264-268, 278-285.2 Plaintiff also 10 asserts individual claims against the supervisory officials, alleging they failed to adequately 11 train and supervise jail staff to properly: (1) administer medication; (2) input medical 12 information in JIMS; (3) communicate serious medical needs to other jail personnel; and 13 (4) monitor seriously ill inmates, including timely responding to emergency calls for aid. 14 Id. ¶¶ 218-244. 15 Plaintiff seeks discovery on these claims, which have survived a Motion to Dismiss. 16 Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 42-54 request the following documents related to thirteen 17 County jail inmate deaths preceding Plaintiff’s February 1, 2018 seizure and fall: 18 (1) Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board (“CLERB”) records, including 19 communications with the County (RFP Nos. 42-47) and internal records and reports (RFP 20 Nos. 48-49); (2) homicide investigation files (RFP No. 50); (3) Internal Affairs 21 investigation records (RFP No. 51); and (4) Sheriff’s Department Critical Incident Review 22 23 24 25 2 Municipalities may be sued for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where official policy or custom violates a Constitutional right, including an unwritten practice or policy 26 that reflects “persistent and widespread discriminatory practices of state officials” that are 27 “so permanent and well-settled as to constitute a ‘custom or usage’ with the force of law.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). 28 1 Board (“CIRB”) reports and records (RFP Nos. 52-54). Dkt. No. 113 at 2-13. Plaintiff 2 argues this discovery is relevant to establish the County and supervisory officials were on 3 notice of a pattern of jail personnel failing to properly address inmates’ serious medical 4 needs, and acquiesced in this practice by failing to take any remedial action. Id. at 14-23. 5 The County objects to producing any responsive documents, contending the discovery at 6 issue is “clearly not relevant to demonstrate a known pattern of similar constitutional 7 violations in that they do not in any matter implicate constitutional violations relating to 8 standard nursing protocol for seizures, the low/bunk/low tier policy, classification policy 9 relating to low bunks, or the intercom policy in effect at the time of [Plaintiff’s] fall.” Id. 10 at 29-30. The County also objects that the discovery violates the privacy rights of third 11 parties. Id. at 32-33. 12 A. Relevancy and Proportionality 13 The Court finds the discovery at issue relevant and proportional to the needs of this 14 case. Discovery of the circumstances surrounding the identified inmate deaths reasonably 15 relates to whether there exists a pattern of jail staff failing to communicate and share critical 16 medical information and/or failing to provide necessary medical care and monitoring, and 17 whether the County and the supervisory defendants were on notice of any such failures. 18 See Mollica v. County of Sacramento, No. 19-cv-2017-KJM-DB, 2021 WL 2417118, at *2 19 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2021) (rejecting defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s discovery 20 21 3 Plaintiff’s SAC identifies nine inmate deaths for which Plaintiff seeks discovery: Daniel 22 Sisson (died 06/25/2011); Bernard Victorianne (died 09/19/2012); Kristopher NeSmith 23 (died 03/01/2013); Ronnie Sandoval (died 02/23/2014); Jerry Lee Cochran (died 09/16/2014); Ruben Nunez (died 08/13/2015); Jason Nishimoto (died 09/27/2015); 24 Richard Boulanger (died 02/14/2016); and Heron Moriarty (died 05/31/2016). Dkt. No. 59 25 ¶¶ 64, 119, 120, 121, 127, 128, 129, 132, 163, 207, 219, 220, 221, 222, 234, 239. Plaintiff’s RFPs also seek discovery regarding four inmate deaths not specifically listed in the SAC: 26 Adrian Sanchez (died 5/3/2016); Bruce Madsen Stucki (died 3/18/2017); Wellington 27 Robert Kemplin (died 8/15/2017); and Chadwick James Moore (died 12/16/2017). Dkt. No. 113 at 5-12. 28 1 requests were irrelevant because plaintiff did not limit them to complaints related to 2 foot/ankle injuries, and permitting discovery of all complaints of denial of medical care at 3 the jail for a two-year period: “Plaintiff’s Monell claim. . . is not limited to only the 4 treatment of foot/ankle injuries. . . . [It is] ‘based on an alleged failure to provide necessary 5 medical treatment to inmates housed at jail facilities and alleged failure to transfer inmates 6 to . . . medical facilities where necessary medical treatment is available.’”); Burrell v. City 7 of Vallejo, No. 19-cv-1898-WBS-KJN, 2021 WL 2661807, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2021) 8 (in § 1983 excessive force action with Monell claim, plaintiff’s request for documents 9 regarding twenty-one prior excessive force incidents alleged in his third amended 10 complaint were “relevant and proportional to the needs of this case”). 11 The County raises a proportionality objection and invites the Court to limit any 12 discovery “to complaints that have been received relating to failure to provide timely 13 seizure medication or a failure to assign a bottom bunk for a limited period of two to five 14 years and intercom complaints after the 2017 policy.” Dkt. No. 113 at 32. The County 15 asserts requiring a more fulsome response will “most likely involve a considerable outlay 16 of money and time” by Sheriff’s Department employees.” Id. The County’s proposal is 17 unduly narrow. Plaintiff’s Monell claims are predicated on broader, systemic failures. By 18 their nature, Monell claims typically require broader and more substantial discovery than 19 claims brought only against the individuals directly involved in the alleged deprivation of 20 a plaintiff’s rights. Awalt v. Marketti, et al., No. 11-c-6142, 2021 WL 6568242, at *7 (N.D. 21 Ill. Dec. 17, 2012). (“Due to the fact Monell claims implicate a potentially large number of 22 events taking place in an organization over a period of time, they naturally, and necessarily 23 require extensive, and often burdensome, discovery.”). Furthermore, this discovery 24 Plaintiff seeks is central to his Monell and supervisory liability claims; thus the burden on 25 the County in responding to the discovery is proportionate to the needs of this case. See N. 26 Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc. v. MultiPlan, Inc., 325 F.R.D. 36, 49 (E.D.N.Y. 27 2018) (“Proportionality and relevance are ‘conjoined’ concepts; the greater the relevance 28 1 the information in issue, the less likely its discovery will be found to be 2 || disproportionate.”). 3 B. Privacy 4 The County further objects that RFP Nos. 42-54 implicate the privacy rights of 5 || individuals not involved in this litigation including “private citizens, families of decedents 6 . . . officials within investigating units.” Dkt. No. 113 at 33. Plaintiff's need for the 7 ||information, however, outweighs any privacy interests in the documents, which are 8 || adequately protected by the Court’s Protective Order.* See Macias v. City of Clovis, 13-cv- 9 ||01819-BAM, 2015 WL 7282841, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2015). (“[T]he weight of 10 || precedent demonstrates that police officer files and related documents in civil rights cases 11 || are disclosed to Plaintiffs pursuant to a protective order.”). The County’s privacy objection, 12 || therefore, is overruled. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing, the County’s objections to Plaintiff's RFP Nos. 42-54 are 15 || overruled. The County must produce all non-privileged responsive documents and produce 16 privilege log for all privilege asserted documents on or before January 17, 2022. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: December 17, 2021 — O,%5 19 nnn 20 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 25 ||* The parties’ stipulated Protective Order applies to “medical and mental health records, 5 law enforcement records, personnel records, Internal Affairs records, records from the 6 CLERB, and other materials containing confidential sensitive information, including 27 ||information maintained for law enforcement purposes” by limiting the dissemination of 28 any such documents and requiring the return of all such materials to Defendants’ counsel at the conclusion of the case. Dkt. No. 82 Jf 1.2, 12.