Hart v. City of Redwood City
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-02653
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hart v. City of Redwood City, Judge Rogers ordered production of both police-practices experts’ personnel files in a discovery dispute.
The parties and their police-practices experts, particularly plaintiffs’ retained expert Adam Bercovici, whose personnel records were ordered produced; the Los Angeles Police Department was also discussed as the entity that could assert the official-information privilege.
What happened
In Hart v. City of Redwood City, the parties disputed subpoenas seeking the personnel files of their police-practices experts, including information about qualifications, discipline, and work history. The plaintiffs sought to prevent disclosure of their retained expert Adam Bercovici’s records.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments based on California personnel-record laws, privacy, and the official-information privilege. It found the records relevant and proportional to the case, and concluded that a protective order adequately protected Bercovici’s privacy. The court also declined to quash the subpoena based on a privilege objection that the Los Angeles Police Department had not actually made.
The court ordered that the personnel files for both parties’ police-practices experts be produced within 14 days of the order. Judge Yvonne Rogers issued the November 7, 2022 order regarding the discovery dispute.
The detailed version
- Hart v. City of Redwood City · No. 4:21-cv-02653
- Yvonne Rogers
- Nov. 7, 2022
Background
The parties filed a joint discovery letter concerning subpoenas seeking the personnel files of their opposing police-practices experts. The requested records included each expert’s qualifications, discipline record, and work history. The defendants did not object to the plaintiffs’ subpoena for the personnel file of the defendants’ expert. The dispute therefore concerned the plaintiffs’ effort to prevent disclosure of their retained expert Adam Bercovici’s personnel records.
The plaintiffs argued that the subpoena was inappropriate, violated Bercovici’s privacy rights, and was barred by California statutes concerning peace-officer personnel records. They also asserted the official-information privilege. The defendants argued that the experts waived privacy rights by participating as paid experts and that the records were relevant to evaluating qualifications, credibility, and bias.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that California statutes and case law did not prevent discovery of police personnel records in a federal civil-rights case. Although federal courts should give some weight to state privacy laws, the court found that no such rights appeared to be implicated here. It also found the records relevant because Bercovici’s testimony was based on his 30 years of law-enforcement experience with the Los Angeles Police Department, and it concluded that the defendants had met their burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 to show that the records were relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
The court further found that the stipulated protective order adequately protected Bercovici’s privacy interests. Regarding the official-information privilege, the court explained that the privilege belonged to the public entity—the Los Angeles Police Department—rather than to the plaintiffs or Bercovici. Because the department had not asserted the privilege despite being served with the subpoenas more than a month earlier, the court declined to quash the defendants’ subpoena based on the possibility that the department might later object.
Order
The court found that the personnel files of the parties’ respective police-practices experts were discoverable and ordered that the records be produced within 14 days of the order. Judge Yvonne Rogers issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.