Iliya v. City of Newark

Background

The court had referred all discovery matters to Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang. The parties filed a joint discovery letter brief about completing fact discovery, after the court had previously required them to meet and confer and resubmit their dispute under the court’s standing discovery order. The court held a discovery hearing on August 27, 2026. Defendants’ counsel appeared, and Dauda Iliya appeared in person while representing himself.

The court explained that it may manage discovery broadly, including by limiting or sequencing discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, discovery may concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court also explained that the party seeking discovery must show relevance, while the party resisting discovery must specifically explain why the request should not be allowed.

Iliya’s written discovery responses

Defendants served requests for production, interrogatories, and requests for admission on April 1, 2026, with responses due May 1, 2026. Iliya served responses on July 14, 2026. Defendants asked the court to find that Iliya waived his objections because his responses were late, to treat the requests for admission as admitted, and to order him to respond to a second set of requests for production. Iliya asked the court to accept his first-set responses or allow supplementation, provide additional time to respond to the second set, and decline to treat the admissions as admitted or the objections as waived.

The court denied the request to find that Iliya waived all objections because of the late responses. It specifically denied the request to deem the first-set requests for admission admitted and to waive all objections to those requests. The court found that defendants had not shown prejudice resulting solely from the timing of the responses, which had been served before the fact-discovery cutoff. The court noted that Iliya’s decision to represent himself did not excuse compliance with procedural and discovery rules.

The court stated that no specific dispute about the substance of Iliya’s responses or objections was before it and that defendants could timely raise such issues under the case schedule. The court nevertheless ordered Iliya to serve supplemental responses to the first-set interrogatories by September 14, 2026. If he believed an earlier response already supplied the requested information, he was ordered to identify that response and state that he believed it was complete.

The court also ordered Iliya to produce nonprivileged documents responsive to the first-set requests for production by September 4, 2026. If he withheld documents based on attorney-client privilege, he was required to notify defendants through a privilege log identifying the withheld documents.

The court further ordered Iliya to respond to the second requests for production and to collect and produce nonprivileged responsive documents by September 4, 2026. For documents withheld under attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine, he was ordered to serve a privilege log by September 28, 2026. The court stated that the parties could agree that documents created after the complaint was filed need not be included in the log.

The court warned Iliya that he was held to the same standards as an attorney for procedural and discovery deadlines and that failing to comply with the deadlines or court orders could result in sanctions.

Further deposition of Iliya

Iliya agreed to participate in a further deposition limited to portions of his April 15, 2026 testimony that defendants contended had been inadequately answered or involved improper objections. The parties disagreed about whether the deposition should occur in person or by videoconference.

At the hearing, Iliya withdrew his objection to appearing at the courthouse. The court also overruled his objection to audio-visual recording, assuming the deposition notice specified that method. The court ordered the further deposition to occur in person at the San Francisco Courthouse on a mutually agreed date and time. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about three alternate dates and submit proposed dates and times to the judge’s courtroom deputy.

The court limited the deposition to the issues, topics, and exhibits identified in Docket 80 that had been inadequately answered or previously subject to improper objections. The deposition was limited to five hours on the record. Defendants could seek permission for additional time after meeting and conferring and showing a good-faith basis. The court would be available by telephone to address disputes during the deposition under its standing discovery order.

The court reminded the parties that instructions not to answer are permitted only to preserve a privilege, enforce a court-ordered limitation, or present a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(3). An objection about relevance or the form of a question did not by itself permit Iliya to refuse to answer.

Other deposition requests

The parties agreed to work together to schedule depositions of officers who had not yet been deposed. Iliya was ordered to provide defendants the names of the officers he wanted to depose by August 28, 2026, and the parties were ordered to submit a joint status report about scheduling the remaining depositions by September 4, 2026.

The court denied any further deposition of Officer Losier or Sergeant Higbee because Iliya had withdrawn that request in the discovery letter brief. The court stated that, after meeting and conferring, Iliya could file a motion seeking permission to reopen either deposition if later-produced information warranted doing so.

Additional materials and conclusion

Iliya sought supplemental discovery concerning body-worn-camera and computer-aided-dispatch materials, related metadata, audit trails, and export, redaction, and retention logs. Defendants represented that they had already produced all responsive materials in the City’s possession. The court ordered defendants to serve supplemental responses to Iliya’s requests for production by September 14, 2026, formally stating and certifying under Rule 26 what had been represented in the discovery letter brief, including the representation that the body-worn-camera and computer-aided-dispatch or 911 files were the only such files that existed. The court instructed Iliya to meet and confer about any response he still believed was inadequate.

The conclusion states that the court granted in part and denied in part the various requests for relief in the parties’ discovery letter brief. It states that the order resolved Dockets 80 and 89.