Cordova v. Lake County

Background

Ricardo Dennis Cordova moved to compel responses to his second set of requests for production and second set of interrogatories. The discovery dispute concerned interrogatory 21 and requests for production 41, 42, 49, and 52.

Service by Email

Cordova served the discovery requests by email. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 permits electronic service when the recipient has consented in writing. The parties’ joint case-management statement said they had agreed, when applicable, to serve and accept discovery requests and responses by email, with service on each party’s attorney of record and anyone else the parties designated.

The court interpreted that language to mean that service on defense counsel was sufficient unless the defendants had designated another recipient. The court stated that the parties appeared to agree that no one else had been separately designated. It therefore ruled that email service was valid.

Late Responses and Waiver

The opinion states that Cordova served the discovery requests on May 31, 3023, and that the defendants responded on August 3, 2023. Rules 33 and 34 generally require answers and objections within 30 days. The court found the defendants’ responses untimely and stated that the defendants had no good cause for serving them late.

The court nevertheless exercised its discretion to excuse the defendants’ loss of objections. It relied on the late stage of discovery, the fact that the case had been pending for more than five years, the approximately five-week delay, the additional 27 days added to the fact-discovery deadline, and Cordova’s failure to identify prejudice from the late responses.

Rulings on the Discovery Requests

Interrogatory 21

The court granted in part and denied in part Cordova’s motion concerning interrogatory 21. It found the interrogatory overbroad because it had no time limit. The court ordered the defendants to amend their response to fully answer the interrogatory for 2015 through 2017, including identifying who was notified to close the file and how that person was notified. The amended response was due within one week.

Requests for Production 41 and 42

The court granted Cordova’s motion concerning both request 41 and request 42. It ordered the defendants to produce, within one week, all responsive documents that were not privileged and had not already been produced.

Request for Production 49

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion concerning request 49. It found overbroad the request for documents about the Chief Probation Officer’s oversight and control over training probation officers generally. The court ordered production, within one week, of documents referring or relating to the Chief Probation Officer’s oversight and control over training probation officers on supervising an individual on Post-Release Community Supervision, from 2015 through 2016, if the documents were non-privileged and had not already been produced.

Request for Production 52

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion concerning request 52. It found the request overbroad because it had no time period and referred broadly to information provided to law-enforcement databases. The court ordered production, within one week, of documents concerning Lake County’s commitment to provide accurate and up-to-date information to law-enforcement databases about who was or was not on Post-Release Community Supervision during 2015 and 2016, if the documents had not already been produced.

Judge and Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued the discovery order. The order excused the defendants’ waiver of objections, granted in part and denied in part the motion concerning interrogatory 21, granted the motions concerning requests 41 and 42, and granted in part and denied in part the motions concerning requests 49 and 52.