Paul v. Redwood National And State Parks Department
- Susan Illston
- 3:17-cv-07197
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In William D. Paul v. Gregory Morse, Judge Illston allowed limited discovery reopening, denied one overbroad request, and ordered other production.
William D. Paul and the defendants, because the order reopened discovery on a limited basis and imposed production and response requirements.
What happened
In William D. Paul v. Gregory Morse, William D. Paul, who was then represented by counsel, asked to reopen discovery for limited purposes, including responding to the defendants’ pending summary-judgment motions.
The defendants opposed reopening, arguing that Paul had not been diligent while representing himself and objecting that some requested discovery was irrelevant, unnecessary, private, or too broad.
Judge Illston allowed limited discovery, including four-hour depositions, supplemental written responses, personnel records, documents about Paul’s arrest and the decision not to charge him, and excessive-force citizen complaints. She denied the request for internal policy documents as too broad; the issue of documents from the defendants’ initial disclosures was considered resolved.
The detailed version
- Paul v. Redwood National And State Parks Department · No. 3:17-cv-07197
- Susan Illston
- Dec. 10, 2019
Background
The parties submitted a discovery dispute. Paul, who was then represented by counsel, asked to reopen discovery for limited purposes, including preparing an opposition to the defendants’ pending motions for summary judgment. The defendants opposed reopening, arguing in part that Paul had not been diligent with discovery while he was representing himself. They also objected to specific discovery requests as irrelevant, unnecessary, invasive of privacy, or overly broad.
Rulings
The court found that limited reopening of discovery was appropriate and in the interest of justice. It ordered or allowed the following:
- Paul may take four-hour depositions of the defendants. Counsel may travel to the defendants, or the depositions may occur by video conference. - Paul must provide responses or supplemental responses to the defendants’ previously served requests for admission and interrogatories. - Paul is entitled to the defendants’ personnel records concerning training, discipline, duties, and performance. The records may be produced under a protective order. If the defendants contend that particular documents are irrelevant, the parties must meet and confer. - The request for internal policy directives and guidelines was denied because the request, as framed, was overly broad. The defendants had also objected that the documents were irrelevant, publicly available, or not in the individual defendants’ possession. - To the extent they were within the defendants’ possession, custody, or control, the defendants had to produce documents concerning Paul’s arrest, the decision not to bring charges, and other documents about Paul. - If Paul sought citizen complaints, complaints involving excessive force were discoverable. The court made no ruling on whether those complaints would ultimately be admissible as evidence. - The issue concerning documents identified in the defendants’ initial disclosures was considered resolved because the defendants stated that they had produced all such documents.
Further Proceedings and Effect
The court directed the parties to meet and confer and, if necessary, file a proposed revised schedule by January 10, 2020, or earlier, if the additional discovery required changes to the schedule for resolving the summary-judgment motions or other dates. Judge Susan Illston entered the order on December 10, 2019. The order addressed discovery and did not decide the pending summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.