*1 This case concerns the decision of the Des Moines Historic Preservation Commission disapproving the installation of vinyl replacement windows in a building owned by Plaintiff James Conlin. Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 55) filed on August 15, 2014, with a supporting Declaration (Doc. No. 55-1), Brief (Doc. No. 55-2) and exhibits (Doc. Nos. 55-3 thru 55-10). Conlin contends that Defendant City of Des Moines (“City”) has not fully searched for and disclosed all responsive documents to his discovery requests. Conlin also complains that the City's counsel improperly objected to and limited the deposition testimony of two Historic Preservation Commissioners. Conlin requests that the Court compel the City to produce all responsive documents and to order the Commissioners to answer the disputed questions.

The City filed a Combined Resistance to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Brief in Support (Doc. No. 58) on August 28, 2014, with supporting exhibits (Doc. Nos. 58-1 thru 58-3). Counsel presented oral arguments on August 29, 2014. The Court considers the matter to be fully submitted.

Conlin first asserts that the City has failed to adequately search for and produce all responsive documents to his discovery requests. In his view, and based on the documents already produced, the City narrowly focused on the records of City employee Jason Van Essen instead of broadening the search to other employees or agents of the City. Conlin specifically complains that the City has not asked or made any other effort to collect responsive documents from City Council Members or Historic Preservation Commissioners.

Based on the current record, the Court agrees that the City appears to have improperly limited the scope of its search for responsive documents and has not yet completed its search of electronically stored information. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) the scope of discovery, in general, is liberal in that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court may order, for good cause, the “discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” (Id.)

Parties may obtain or inspect documents and electronically stored information pursuant to Rule 34 which provides, in part:

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b):

*2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A).

In the Court's opinion, the City has sufficient control for purposes of Rule 34 over responsive documents which were either generated by, provided to, or are in the possession of City Council Members or Historic Preservation Commissioners because of their official duties for the City. The City has not provided the Court with sufficient reason as to why it is unable to request and obtain those documents. Although the Council Members and Commissioners are not employees, the Court finds that the City has the practical ability and authority to obtain documents relevant to this action from those individuals. The Motion to Compel shall be granted, therefore, on this initial point.

The City's search for documents responsive to Conlin's discovery requests shall include all materials, including electronically stored information, within the City's “possession, custody, or control” pursuant to Rule 34. The City shall request, obtain and produce all nonprivileged, responsive documents in the possession or control of City Council Members and Historic Preservation Commissioners. The City shall complete its search, including of electronically stored information on its own servers, and produce the responsive documents by September 25, 2014.

Conlin also contends that the City has failed to produce documents supporting Deposition Exhibit No. 22 which relates to a purported increase of property values within the historic district. In his Request for Production of Documents No. 14, Conlin requested “[a]ll documents underlying or supporting the information, calculations, and conclusions reflected in” the exhibit. The City responded by stating “[t]he information, calculations and conclusions ... were simply taken from publicly available information on the Polk County Assessor's website” and further indicating “[t]he City possesses no independent documents.” (Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Req. for Produc. of Docs. No. 14.)

After considering the parties' arguments, and based on the present record, the Court finds the City has failed to provide a full and complete response on this discovery matter. The information sought by Conlin appears to be relevant and discoverable under Rules 26(b) and 34. The mere referral to “publicly available information” on a website is an insufficient response. Therefore, the Motion to Compel is also granted as to discovery related to Deposition Exhibit No. 22. The City shall produce all responsive documents, with a sufficiently detailed narrative response, to Request for Production of Documents No. 14 by September 25, 2014.

Conlin asserts that counsel for the City improperly objected to certain questions and limited the deposition testimony of Commissioners York Taenzer and Teresa Weidmaier. The Court previously denied the City's request to prevent the depositions but ordered that the Commissioners “not be questioned about, and are not required to disclose, their mental processes in reaching the decisions related to the property owned and managed by Conlin in the historic district.” (Order (Doc. No. 37) p. 9.) The Court allowed the Commissioners to be questioned about “the following information if relevant to the subject matter of this case and otherwise discoverable: the general criteria or procedures utilized in making determinations as members of the Commission; background information related to the member's service on the Commission including qualifications, training, experience and term of service; and the existence and substance of communications with individuals other than members of the Commission and staff of the City.” (Id. pp. 9-10.) Conlin contends that the City improperly instructed Commissioners Taenzer and Weidmaier to not answer questions permitted under the Order.

*3 The Court was provided with, and has reviewed, copies of pages of the deposition transcripts at issue. In general, the City's objections to questions asking the Commissioners as to what documents were presented to them at the meetings at issue, or as to whether certain documents had been previously seen by them, are overruled. Those type of questions are permissible under the Court's prior Order. However, questions as to whether, and to what extent, the Commissioners considered, evaluated or gave weight to certain documents are not allowed.

As a result, the objections asserted during the Taenzer deposition for questions at the following transcript pages and lines shall be overruled: 83:8-9; 96:3-5; 97:12-14; 98:2-4 and 8-10; 99:2-5 and 16-17; 100:1-3 and 15-16; 101:13-15 and 19-20; 104:10-11; 105:5-6; 106:8; 107:3-5; 114:13-15; 119:14-17; 132:23-25; and 137:4-7. The Motion to Compel is granted as to those portions of the deposition. Conlin's counsel may redepose Commissioner Taenzer as to those questions, which must be answered by the Commissioner.

The objection asserted against the question on page 79 at line 9 of the Taenzer transcript is also overruled. Counsel for Conlin may ask Commissioner Taenzer whether he took notes, which he must answer. But Commissioner Taenzer may not be asked about the substance of any notes he may have taken. Such an inquiry would, in the opinion of the Court, improperly require disclosure of the Commissioner's mental processes.

The objections asserted against the following questions during the Taenzer deposition shall be sustained: 94:14-17; 109:16-17; 110:1, 13-14, 18, and 22-23; 121:19-22 and 122:2-3; 122:19-21; 126:13; and 129:2. The Court agrees with the City that the disputed questions improperly seek and require disclosure of the Commissioner's mental processes. Consequently, the Motion to Compel is denied as to those portions of the deposition.

As for the deposition of Commissioner Weidmaier, the objections asserted against questions at the following transcript pages and lines shall be overruled: 66:23-25 and 67:1-2; 77:14; 79:14-15; 81:9 and 24-25; 82:21-22; 83:2 and 6-7; 84:22-25 and 85:1-2; 99:20-22 (but no further questions as to what her understanding is based upon); 100:2-10; and 105:14-18. The Motion to Compel is granted as to those questions, which must be answered by Commissioner Weidmaier.

The objections against questions at pages and lines 55:23-25 and 112:6-7 are sustained. The questions at issue improperly seek and require disclosure of Commissioner Weidmaier's mental processes. The Motion to Compel is, therefore, denied as to those portions of the deposition.

As set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 55) is granted in part and denied in part. No costs or attorney's fees will be granted at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated September 4, 2014.