Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose

Background

Lionel Rubalcava and Douglas Kaleas asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute concerning six contention interrogatories. The questions sought information supporting two allegations in Rubalcava’s amended complaint: that Kaleas and San Jose Police Department detective Joseph Perez gave the Rodriguez family thousands of dollars beyond certain witness-protection payments, and that they instructed Jennifer Contreras to pressure Eric Millan and his brother to maintain false identifications of Rubalcava through trial.

The six interrogatories requested facts, people with relevant knowledge, and supporting documents. Rubalcava objected that the questions were premature because fact discovery was still underway and he had not completed depositions of witnesses likely to have relevant information. He had answered Questions 11 and 15, which asked him to identify knowledgeable witnesses, but Kaleas argued those answers were insufficient.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, a party may use an interrogatory to seek discovery allowed under Rule 26(b). Rule 26(b) generally permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant and proportional to a claim or defense. A party must answer an interrogatory separately and fully unless it has a specific objection. Although a court may delay a contention interrogatory until designated discovery is complete, the court must decide that issue case by case.

Court’s analysis

The court assumed, for purposes of the dispute, that the six questions were contention interrogatories, although it was not entirely convinced that they fit that category. The court concluded that answers would meaningfully clarify the disputed facts, potentially narrow the dispute, and possibly reveal a basis for a later summary-judgment motion.

The court emphasized that the questions concerned specific factual allegations already made without qualification in Rubalcava’s amended complaint. It found that Rubalcava was being asked to disclose the evidentiary support he already had, not to formulate a new legal or factual position. The court also found the allegations important to Rubalcava’s claims against Kaleas because those claims depended in part on evidence that witnesses received financial benefits in exchange for false testimony and that the conduct was concealed from prosecutors.

The court rejected the argument that Rubalcava’s unfinished discovery justified withholding information he already had. It noted that only eight months remained before the fact-discovery deadline and that Kaleas needed to identify witnesses and documents for his defense. The court also noted that substantial discovery had already occurred, including production of approximately 35,000 pages and depositions of Perez and three Rodriguez family members. It found that requiring answers would not impose an undue burden and reminded Rubalcava that he must timely supplement his responses when he obtains additional information under Rule 26(e).

Regarding Questions 11 and 15, the court found that Rubalcava had not stated whether his answers disclosed all responsive information currently in his possession, custody, or control. The court therefore required him to supplement those answers if he had additional responsive information. The court stated that it was not enough to say that the information would be provided through initial disclosures.

Disposition

The court overruled Rubalcava’s prematurity objection and required him to serve answers to Questions 10 through 12 and 14 through 16 consistent with the court’s directions by July 25, 2022. This was a discovery ruling and did not decide the underlying constitutional claims.