De Tagle v. Santa Clara County, San Jose Police Department
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:23-cv-05095
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In De Tagle v. Officer Julian, Judge Demarchi granted permission to subpoena contact information needed to serve the defendant.
Austin De Tagle may seek limited early discovery from the City of San Jose to obtain information needed for service on Officer Julian. The City must respond through the subpoena process, subject to the court’s sealing and protective-order procedures, and the U.S. Marshal is to serve the subpoena after De Tagle files a proper subpoena.
What happened
In Austin De Tagle v. San Jose Police Officer Julian #4610, Austin De Tagle, who represented himself, could not serve Officer Julian because the officer had resigned from the San Jose Police Department. De Tagle asked to subpoena the City of San Jose for information that could help locate and serve Officer Julian.
The court found that the City likely had Officer Julian’s full name and contact information and that the information would likely allow service. The court also noted that De Tagle’s complaint had passed initial screening based on a plausible claim that Officer Julian made a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted the application to serve the subpoena before the required case-management conference. She ordered De Tagle to prepare and file the subpoena, directed that the U.S. Marshal would serve it, allowed the City to submit responsive information to the court under seal, and extended the service deadline to March 18, 2024.
The detailed version
- De Tagle v. Santa Clara County, San Jose Police Department · No. 5:23-cv-05095
- Virginia Demarchi
- Feb. 5, 2024
Background
Austin De Tagle, who was representing himself, named San Jose Police Officer Julian #4610 as the sole defendant in his first amended complaint. The court had allowed De Tagle to proceed without paying the filing fee, screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint on Officer Julian.
The Marshal attempted service at the San Jose Police Department but was told that Officer Julian had resigned in April 2023. The court then directed De Tagle to provide updated contact information. De Tagle said his efforts to obtain that information from the City of San Jose had been unsuccessful because the City’s Human Resources department cited privacy concerns. He asked for permission to serve a third-party subpoena seeking Officer Julian’s full name, current or last known address, contact information, and email address.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that discovery generally occurs only after a defendant has been served, but that courts may allow limited early discovery when it is needed to identify an unknown defendant or obtain information necessary for service. The court found that the San Jose Police Department appeared to have at least some information about Officer Julian’s full name and contact information, and that obtaining the information would likely allow De Tagle to serve the complaint.
The court also noted that its earlier screening order had found that the complaint stated a plausible Fourth Amendment false-arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court did not decide that claim’s merits in this order.
Ruling
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted De Tagle’s application to serve a third-party subpoena on the City of San Jose before the Rule 26(f) conference. The court ordered De Tagle to prepare a document subpoena using the specified federal form and file it by February 19, 2024. After De Tagle filed a proper subpoena, the court would direct the U.S. Marshal to serve it on the City.
The City could submit responsive documents to the court under seal instead of giving them directly to De Tagle, and could seek a protective order limiting use of the information to service on Officer Julian. The court also extended the deadline to serve the first amended complaint on Officer Julian from February 16, 2024, to March 18, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.