Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ayala v. County of Riverside

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 12, 2017

Juan Carlos Rodriguez Ayala,
v.
County of Riverside,

          Present: Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel [Dkt. 68]

         I.

         INTRODUCTION

         On June 22, 2017, Plaintiffs Juan Carlos Rodriguez Ayala, Monica Resvaloso, A. M. Rodriguez-Resvaloso, J. C. Rodriguez-Resvaloso, J. P. Rodriguez-Resvaloso, and J. T. Rodriguez-Resvaloso (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion to Compel (“Motion”) two spreadsheets from defendants County of Riverside, Riverside County Sheriff's Department, Sergeant Paul Heredia, Deputy Miguel Ramos, Sergeant Jessica Vanderhoof, Investigator Nelson Gomez, and Deputy Melissa Rodriguez (“Defendants”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 68, Joint Stipulation (“JS”). On June 22, 2017, Defendants filed an Opposition, along with supporting declarations and a copy of the two spreadsheets, under seal for in camera review. Dkt. 66 (unredacted documents filed under seal); Dkt. 69 (June 29, 2017 Order granting leave to file under seal). On June 29, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief. Dkt. 70. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is DENIED.

         II.

         RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs initiated this action in Riverside County Superior Court on March 11, 2016. Dkt. 1 at 2. The action arises out of an incident in the early morning hours of September 26, 2015, when Plaintiff Juan Carlos Rodriguez Ayala was shot by Riverside County Sheriff's deputies and the subsequent alleged wrongful imprisonment, harassment, and intimidation of Plaintiffs. Id.

         On April 12, 2016, the case was removed to federal court. Id.

         On July 12, 2016, the Court issued a Civil Trial Scheduling Order setting a discovery cutoff of June 2, 2017 and trial for September 26, 2017. Dkt. 28.

         On August 4, 2016, the Court approved and entered the parties' stipulated Protective Order. Dkt. 37.

         On September 14, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Dkt. 40, SAC. The SAC sets forth the following eight causes of action: (1) Battery; (2) Negligence; (3) Violations of section 52.1 of the California Civil Code; (4) Violations of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Individual Liability; (5) Violations of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), Entity Liability; (6) False Imprisonment; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. Id.

         Previously, on July 26, 2016, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Monell[1] claim from Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), finding Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged the existence of the following policy, practice, and custom: “the Municipal Defendants' failure to discipline officers who engage in constitutional violations - and their efforts to cover up unconstitutional conduct - fosters a culture of excessive force and violence among its officers.” Dkt. 32 at 7.

         On March 31, 2017, Plaintiffs served a Third Request for Production of Documents on Defendant County of Riverside. Dkt. 68-1, Declaration of Ian P. Samson (“Samson Decl.”), ¶ 3, Ex. 2. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.