Powelson v. Sausalito Police Department

Background

Powelson asked to issue a subpoena to the Marin County District Attorney’s Office seeking information about Officer Nick White’s alleged inclusion on a “Brady list” identifying credibility issues. Powelson asserted that White’s inclusion resulted from alleged perjury in a criminal trial involving White’s ex-girlfriend and argued that the information was relevant to White’s credibility as a witness in this civil action.

Powelson attached a July 12, 2016 letter from the District Attorney’s Office to White. The letter stated that the office’s Brady Committee had determined that two Mill Valley Police Department reports contained information that had to be provided in future cases in which White was a witness. Powelson also attached a 2017 article about the criminal trial, which stated that the jury acquitted White’s ex-girlfriend and that at least one juror found White not credible.

Parties’ arguments

The defendants argued that the subpoena was overbroad and disproportionate because it sought all documents concerning Brady determinations without limits on time or subject matter. They also argued that California law protected the documents and that federal courts balance competing interests when police disciplinary records are requested.

Court’s analysis

The court reasoned that Powelson was attempting to use alleged lies in an unrelated 2016 trial to show that White was lying in this case. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) generally bars using evidence of another crime, wrong, or act to prove a person’s character and show that the person acted consistently with that character on a particular occasion. The rule allows such evidence for specific purposes, including motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. The court found that Powelson had not satisfied any of those exceptions.

The court also cited decisions holding that unrelated wrongdoing is not subject to discovery. It found the 2016 incident completely unrelated to Powelson’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning alleged unlawful seizure, false arrest, due-process violations, and First Amendment retaliation arising from officers’ removal of his belongings from an encampment on November 22, 2021.

Finally, the court explained that the disclosure obligations associated with Brady v. Maryland and People v. Coyer concern the rights of criminal defendants. Those criminal-case disclosure rules did not establish a right to the requested discovery in this civil action.

Disposition

The court denied Powelson’s request to issue the subpoena. A footnote states that it was not entirely clear which claims against White had survived an earlier order granting a motion in part; this order nevertheless denied the subpoena request.