December 10, 2013
REBECA FAJARDO, Plaintiff,
THE CITY OF EL CENTRO, a municipal corporation; TERI BROWNLEE, an individual; JIM MCGINLEY, an individual; EDDIE MADUENO, an individual; MIKE CRANKSHAW, an individual; JEFF MASON, an individual; MARIO SANABRIA, an individual; ALVARO RAMIREZ, an individual; JOHN SEAMAN, an individual; ROBERT SAWYER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
PETER C. LEWIS, Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to the Court's Pitchess Procedures, Steven J. Lowery, attorney for the Defendants', submitted to the Court several documents identified as complaints/investigations for an in camera review. The documents are number stamped Doc. No. 0497 through Doc. No. 0957.
Plaintiff's attorney argues that the documents sought are material to the lawsuit arising from gender discrimination, sexual harassment, denial of due process, retaliation, civil rights violations, failure to compensate Plaintiff for overtime pay and violations of the Police Officer Bill of Rights. Defendants argue that the material requested is not relevant to Plaintiff's lawsuit and claims right-of-privacy privilege.
The Court, after a thorough review of the submitted documents, finds that all documents submitted are irrelevant to the claims at issue.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b), provides that any non-privileged material that is relevant to a party's claim or defense is discoverable. To be discoverable, the information does not have to be admissible; it needs to be relevant information that appears to be reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Moreover, "Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised in response to discovery requests." Soto v. City of Concord , 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 1995). "Resolution of a privacy objection... requires a balancing of the need for the information sought against the privacy right asserted." Id.
In this instance, the Court finds that the documents reviewed did not contain any information remotely relating to sexual harassment, discrimination and did not demonstrate a negative implication for truthfulness and veracity. Furthermore, the Court finds that the submitted documents are not relevant to the claims of denial of due process, retaliation, violation of civil rights, failure to compensate or violations to the Police Officer Bill of Rights.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for discovery of Doc. No. 0497 through Doc. No. 0957.
IT IS SO ORDERED.