Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose

Background

Lionel Rubalcava and the City of San Jose and individual defendants disputed the scope of the defendants’ deposition of Rubalcava. Rubalcava’s lawsuit asserts federal constitutional and state-law claims arising from his 2003 wrongful conviction for attempting to murder Raymond Rodriguez.

At a February 8, 2023 deposition, Rubalcava’s counsel instructed him not to answer some questions about his juvenile criminal history, misdemeanor convictions, and arrests for conduct that did not result in charges. The defendants also sought questioning about gang-related activities. Rubalcava did not object to all questioning about his adult criminal history or gang experience and had answered some questions on those subjects.

The defendants also sought more questioning about mental-health treatment Rubalcava received after his release from prison. They said Rubalcava had not timely disclosed treatment providers or records, so they lacked an adequate opportunity to question him about that treatment during the first deposition. Rubalcava responded that the defendants had not requested the information and that they had already questioned him about his treatment. He later obtained and produced the records.

Criminal-history and gang-related questioning

The court concluded that Rubalcava had placed his prior criminal history and gang-related activities at issue for discovery. The court found the information relevant to whether experiences or conduct unrelated to the wrongful conviction and incarceration caused or contributed to the injuries and damages Rubalcava claimed.

The court also found that adult criminal history and adult gang involvement were relevant to Rubalcava’s allegation that the defendants fabricated evidence of his participation in gang-related violence. The court explained that questioning about his experiences and conduct, including as a juvenile, could be relevant to injury and damages even if particular information might not ultimately be admissible at summary judgment or trial.

The court denied Rubalcava’s request for a protective order on these matters. Subject to the time limit, the defendants may ask about his criminal history and gang-related activities, including juvenile criminal history, misdemeanor convictions, and arrests for uncharged conduct. The questioning must focus on how those experiences and conduct may have affected his mental health and other claimed injuries, and on how his adult criminal history and adult gang involvement relate to his allegation that the defendants fabricated evidence of gang participation. The defendants must avoid questions designed solely to determine whether Rubalcava committed crimes for which he was never arrested or charged.

Mental-health treatment records

The court did not decide whether Rubalcava was required to disclose the treatment providers and records as part of his initial disclosures. Instead, it found that Rubalcava had now produced the records and that they were relevant to his claim of mental-health injuries.

The court found that the defendants were prejudiced in their earlier questioning because they did not have the records and Rubalcava could not recall some treatment details. It denied Rubalcava’s request for a protective order concerning the records. The defendants may ask about records obtained or produced after the February 8, 2023 deposition and about diagnoses or treatment described in those records.

Additional deposition time and restrictions

The court reviewed the transcript of the first deposition and found that Rubalcava’s counsel made frequent objections, including improper speaking objections and commentary about questions and answers. The court found that this conduct disrupted and delayed the deposition. It also found that the defendants’ cited questions were related to the injuries Rubalcava claimed and were not unreasonable.

The court concluded that the defendants were entitled to additional time because counsel’s conduct impeded the examination and more time was needed to question Rubalcava fairly about the subjects identified above. The defendants may take a further deposition limited to 3.5 hours of questioning. Rubalcava’s counsel may not make speaking objections; objections to the form of a question must be limited to stating that counsel “objects to the form of the question,” or words to that effect. The parties were ordered to confer about a mutually agreeable date and time.