Rubalcava v. City Of San Jose

Background

Lionel Rubalcava and the City of San Jose, Joseph Perez, Topui Fonua, Steven Spillman, Rafael Nieves, and Ramon Avalos asked the court to resolve a dispute about the defendants’ responses to three contention interrogatories. A contention interrogatory is a discovery question asking a party to state whether it takes a particular position and, if so, identify the evidence supporting that position.

Rubalcava’s lawsuit asserts federal constitutional and state-law claims arising from his 2003 conviction for attempting to murder Raymond Rodriguez. He alleges, among other things, that police officers fabricated evidence that he was guilty and that he participated in a conflict between Norteño gang factions.

The three interrogatories asked whether the defendants contended that: (1) Rubalcava shot Rodriguez on April 5, 2002; (2) the shooting was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with West Side Mob; and (3) the shooting resulted from or related to a conflict between the Varrio Horseshoe and West Side Mob gangs.

The Discovery Responses

The defendants did not answer any of the interrogatories “yes” or “no.” Instead, they stated that they could not know definitively about events occurring more than 20 years earlier, while asserting that considerable evidence suggested Rubalcava’s guilt and provided a valid basis to investigate him and for the criminal jury to convict him. They also referred generally to the entire preliminary-hearing and trial records, police reports, witness statements, other discovery, and deposition testimony.

Rubalcava argued that these responses answered a different question and failed to identify the evidence supporting each contention. The defendants argued that they had fully responded. The opinion states that the defendants did not rely on objections for purposes of this dispute.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 requires a party to answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath, unless the party objects. The court held that the defendants had not expressly answered the three questions and could not avoid answering them by offering a different contention about the evidence supporting Rubalcava’s conviction.

The court explained that if the defendants’ answer to an interrogatory was “no,” they had to say so and did not need to provide a further response. If the answer was “yes,” they had to identify the evidence supporting that particular contention. Referring generally to all evidence introduced at the criminal proceedings or obtained in discovery did not fairly satisfy the requirement to identify evidence concerning the specific factual point in each question.

Disposition

The court ordered the defendants to fully respond to Contention Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 3 by May 31, 2023. The matter was resolved without oral argument.