United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER REGARDING 10/10/19 JOINT LETTER RE: DEFENDANT
HOLCOMBE'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION RE: DKT.
A. WESTMORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
October 10, 2019, Plaintiff Gerald Len Cooley and Defendant
Darryl Holcombe filed a joint letter pertaining to the
sufficiency of Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's
Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1 and 3. (Joint
Letter, Dkt. No. 120.)
review of the joint letter, and for the reasons set forth
below, the Court denies Plaintiff's request to compel
Timeliness of Initial Responses
initial matter, Plaintiff contends that the responses were
not timely served. (Joint Letter at 2.) Defendant argues that
Plaintiff refused to grant a reasonable request for an
extension of time, so he served timely objections on July 3,
2019 in order to preserve his objections, and supplemental
responses were later served on August 6, 2019. Id.
Plaintiff asks that the Court require Defendant to furnish
supplemental responses without objection. (Joint Letter at
3.) The Court declines to do so, because 1) the objections
were preserved, and 2) the parties are encouraged to grant
reasonable extensions to serve discovery responses.
See Northern District Guidelines for Professional
Conduct § 4.
Request for Production No. 1
No. 1 seeks documents pertaining to Plaintiff's
involvement in the murder investigation, including any
investigative reports. (Joint Letter at 2.) Plaintiff argues
that after reviewing the document production, no
“comprehensive report authored by Holcombe concerning
his analysis of the cellphone GPS location data” was
included, despite the fact that an affidavit supporting a
search warrant for Plaintiff's cellphone stated that
“Holcombe reported that Plaintiff's and
Larry Griffin's cellphone GPS locations mirrored each
other.” (Joint Letter at 2) (emphasis in original.)
response, Defendant states that the supplemental responses
served on August 6, 2019 included all documents responsive to
the request, including Holcombe's written digital
forensic analysis of the cell site locations on the night of
the murder, the phone records used to prepare the report, and
an email from the Walnut Creek Police Department with
information regarding Plaintiff's cell phone. (Joint
Letter at 3.) Defendant affirmatively states that
“[a]ll reports by Holcombe relating to his analysis of
the locations of Griffin's phone and Cooley's phone
have been produced to plaintiff.” Id.
Court cannot require a party to produce documents that do not
exist. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to compel
supplemental responses to Request No. 1 is denied.
Request for Production No. 3
No. 3 seeks:
any and all digital cellphone data including in and out going
phone calls, text messages, GPS location data, deleted
pictures, encrypted messages, that were obtained and used in
the course of the investigation of Plaintiff Gerald Len
Cooley Jr. as the accessor of Larry Griffin in connection of
the murder of Courtney Brown that points to Plaintiff's
involvement or involvement is said murder, prior to the
submission of the warrant application to Contra Costa ...