Cordova v. Lake County

Background

Ricardo Dennis Cordova sued Deputy Sheriff Aaron Clark, Lake County, and unidentified defendants over alleged civil-rights violations arising from an encounter on January 29, 2016. He also sued two former Lake County probation officers for allegedly failing to update his post-release supervision information. The opinion identifies claims including an excessive-force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Clark and claims against Lake County for failure to train, supervise, and discipline.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Hixson for discovery matters. Cordova asked Lake County to provide additional responses to requests for admission and to produce a witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) to testify about several topics. After a hearing, Judge Hixson issued an order granting in part and denying in part Cordova’s motions to compel further discovery. Lake County then asked the district court to vacate that order and deny Cordova’s discovery requests in full.

Court’s analysis

The district court reviewed the motion under Rule 72(a), which permits objections to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order within 14 days. The court stated that Lake County’s objection was filed four days after the deadline and that this untimeliness alone justified denying the motion.

The court also rejected the motion on the merits. Under Rule 72(a), reconsideration was available only if Judge Hixson’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court found that Lake County had not met that standard.

The court upheld the order requiring Lake County to provide good-faith responses to requests for admission concerning the authenticity of 66 documents. It found that Lake County’s repeated response—objecting, stating that it had insufficient information or that the information was not maintained in the ordinary course of business, and then denying the request—did not fairly respond to the substance of the requests as required by Rule 36(a)(4). The court also found that the volume of more than 900 requests for admission was reasonable because the requests related to authenticating documents involved in the case.

The court further upheld the requirement that Lake County produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for additional testimony on nine categories. The court found the topics relevant and sufficiently clear, including topics concerning Lake County’s information provided to law-enforcement databases, complaints and disciplinary history involving Deputy Clark, Lake County’s use-of-force policies, the incident and any investigation, and disciplinary actions relevant to Cordova’s failure-to-train, supervise, or discipline claim.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey S. White denied Lake County’s Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling on Discovery. The opinion does not state that the underlying civil-rights claims were resolved by this order.