NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose

Background

The court considered a joint discovery letter addressing six disputes about the City’s responses to plaintiffs’ written discovery.

Dispute 1: Body-camera metadata and audit logs

Plaintiffs requested metadata and audit logs associated with police body-worn-camera videos. The requested metadata included geolocation information and information showing whether a video had been edited. The City argued that it had already disclosed relevant metadata, including the officer’s name, the video’s date, and its start time, and that other information would be apparent from viewing the videos.

The court disagreed. It found that geolocation information was directly relevant to identifying the police officers involved in the incidents alleged in the complaint. The court therefore granted plaintiffs’ request. It stated that potentially privileged information could be protected through redaction and noted that discovery was covered by the parties’ stipulated protective order.

Dispute 2: Production end date and amended responses

Plaintiffs sought an end date for the City’s document production and amended discovery responses. The City said it would try to complete its document production by April 30, 2022.

Because the parties appeared to agree that the City would attempt to complete document production by that date, the court denied as moot plaintiffs’ request concerning the production end date. The court also reminded the parties that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) requires timely supplementation of discovery responses. The City did not make a similar commitment concerning amended written responses.

Dispute 3: Identifying withheld materials

Plaintiffs argued that the City had not adequately stated whether it was withholding responsive materials. The City responded that it had identified the categories of documents it would produce and explained where it disagreed with the scope of the requests.

The court found that the City’s objections provided enough information for plaintiffs to have an informed discussion of those objections. It therefore denied plaintiffs’ request as to dispute 3.

Dispute 4: Contention interrogatories

Contention interrogatories are written questions asking a party to explain the factual and legal basis for its claims or defenses. Plaintiffs sought substantive answers by April 30, 2022. The City argued that such interrogatories are disfavored before substantial discovery is complete.

The court stated that parties seeking early answers to contention interrogatories must provide more than vague statements about their usefulness. It found that plaintiffs had cited only general statements about the value of the answers at that stage. The court therefore denied without prejudice plaintiffs’ request as to dispute 4.

Dispute 5: Support for affirmative defenses

Plaintiffs sought responses identifying the people and documents supporting the City’s affirmative defenses. The City argued that answering would be burdensome and time-consuming and that it needed to review body-camera footage and take depositions first.

The court agreed that later discovery might require the City to amend or supplement its responses, but held that the City still had to respond based on its current knowledge. The court granted plaintiffs’ request as to dispute 5 and ordered the City to respond to interrogatories 23 and 24 by May 31, 2022.

Dispute 6: Documents provided to an outside vendor

Plaintiffs sought all documents the City had provided to an outside vendor to create annual analyses of the City’s use of force during the prior five years. Plaintiffs argued that the materials were relevant to their claims under Monell, a doctrine allowing certain claims against a local government based on an official policy or established practice, and to their requests for injunctive relief.

The City argued that collecting and producing the documents would be unduly burdensome and time-consuming and that the documents were not relevant to the injunctive-relief claims. The court found that the documents were non-privileged and relevant to plaintiffs’ Monell and injunctive-relief claims. It therefore granted plaintiffs’ request as to dispute 6 and directed the parties to meet and confer about a production date.

Disposition

The order granted disputes 1, 5, and 6; denied dispute 2 as moot; denied dispute 3; and denied dispute 4 without prejudice.