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

Background

This civil-rights case arose from protests in San Jose on May 29 and 30, 2020, held in response to the killing of George Floyd by police. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their rights to assemble and protest and alleged racial discrimination, disability discrimination, excessive force, and wrongful arrest. The complaint asserted claims under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the California Bane Act, the California Ralph Act, assault and battery, and negligence.

The plaintiffs proposed two classes. The proposed damages class included people at the May 29 or May 30 protests who were struck by projectile impact weapons, batons, or other physical force from a San Jose Police Department officer. The proposed injunctive-relief class included people who had participated, were participating, or might participate in protests in San Jose involving speech, assembly, association, petition, and press rights, particularly protests about police violence and discrimination against people of color.

Class Certification

For a class action, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires the proposed class to satisfy requirements including numerous members, common legal or factual questions, typical claims, and adequate representation. Depending on the type of class, the plaintiffs must also satisfy additional requirements. For a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions must predominate over individual questions, and a class action must be superior to other available methods. For an injunction class under Rule 23(b)(2), the defendants must have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class.

The court denied the motion to certify the damages class. Plaintiffs argued that common questions about San Jose’s customs and policies for policing public protests predominated, including whether the police department had unconstitutional practices, failed to train or supervise employees properly, and whether city policymakers authorized violations by failing to discipline officers.

The court distinguished a prior case in which a class had been certified because that case focused on command personnel’s authorization of less-lethal force. Here, plaintiffs sued both officials involved in authorizing force and individual officers alleged to have applied force. Because the claims included separate, individual allegations about each use of force, the court found that individual issues would not be outweighed by common issues under Rule 23(b)(3). The court therefore denied certification of the proposed damages class and did not address the Rule 23(a) requirements for that class.

The court also denied the proposed injunctive-relief class. The complaint and class-certification motion did not clearly identify the scope or nature of the requested injunction. Plaintiffs stated for the first time in their reply that they sought to prohibit indiscriminate use of impact munitions and batons against peaceful protesters and to require training and accountability measures, but they provided no further details. The court also found that the claims were divided among different plaintiffs and different defendants and challenged both command decisions and individual officers’ applications of force. The court concluded that this prevented a finding that the defendants’ conduct applied generally to the proposed class. It did not address the Rule 23(a) requirements for the injunctive-relief class.

Discovery Ruling

Defendants asked the court to preclude plaintiff Michael Acosta from pursuing damages for future income loss and from using employment-related documents that were not disclosed before discovery closed. They argued that plaintiffs disclosed the potential claim too late to allow discovery from Acosta’s employer and coworkers.

Plaintiffs responded that Acosta’s discovery responses had indicated that he might have a future wage-loss claim. They argued that the claim had initially been speculative and became more concrete after a less-positive October 2022 performance review and news of a technology-sector downturn in November 2022.

The court found that plaintiffs had not shown that the late disclosure was substantially justified or harmless. The court noted that discovery did not close until November 14, 2022, and found that Acosta was in the best position to assess whether his work performance had been affected. The court granted defendants’ request to preclude the future-income-loss claim and the late-produced documents.

Sealing Ruling

The court had previously denied without prejudice a motion seeking to seal entire exhibits. On the revised motion, the court granted sealing to the extent the exhibits contained medical or mental-health information. It denied sealing to the extent the exhibits contained employment information, including salary information and product names. The plaintiffs were directed to refile the exhibits with only medical or mental-health information redacted from the public filing.

Disposition

The court denied certification of both the proposed damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) and the proposed injunctive-relief class under Rule 23(b)(2). It granted defendants’ discovery request to preclude evidence based on Acosta’s future lost income. It granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion to seal.