Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from the execution of a search warrant at his home in September 2006. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that in the course of executing the search warrant, police officers unlawfully forced him to take narcotic pain medication which compelled him, in an altered state, to reveal the location of evidence on which his conviction was based, in violation of his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

In the instant motion before the Court, plaintiff moves the Court to compel the production of documents responsive to his Requests for Production from defendant Stacia Francisco. Plaintiff asserts he requires the production of each request to prove his civil rights claim and “point out the showing that the defendants failed to follow the proper policy and procedure required by state officials in their position of authority in dispensing drugs to this Plaintiff.” Doc. 84 at 3. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense ... Relevant information need not be admissible that the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The party objecting to the discovery must establish that the requested discovery is not relevant. Simpson v. Univ. of Colo., 220 F.R.D. 354, 359 (D. Colo. 2004).

Plaintiff sets forth that on May 15, 2010, he submitted Plaintiff's Second Request for Production of Documents. Since defendant does not contest the relevancy of plaintiff's requests for production, the Court will address the sufficiency of each response in turn.

Defendant claims she does not know whether the policy manuals sought by plaintiff actually exist. Defendant suggests that if such manuals were to exist, they would be in the possession, custody, and control of the Casper Police Department and that plaintiff should use the subpoena process to obtain these materials. The Court finds that based on defendant's response, it is not clear as to whether these materials may be in defendant's possession or control.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require production of documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things which are under the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a). Control not only entails the possession of such materials, but also the right, authority, or ability to obtain the documents. Super Film of America, Inc., v. UCB Films, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 649, 653 (D. Kan.2004). Specifically, “[c]ourts have universally held that documents are deemed to be within the possession, custody or control if the party has actual possession, custody or control or has the legal right to obtain the documents on demand.” Starlight Int'l v. Herlihy, 186 F.R.D. 626 (D. Kan. 1999). However, “[l]egal ownership is not determinative of whether a party has custody, possession, or control of a document for the purposes of Rule 34.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Deloitte & Touche, 145 F.R.D. 108, 110 (D.Colo.1992). Rule 34 enables the party seeking discovery to require the production of documents if the opposing party has “any right or ability to influence the person in whose possession the documents lie.” Super Film, 219 F.R.d. at 651.

*2 The Court finds that based on the above-stated law, if the materials sought by plaintiff are within defendant's possession or control, or if defendant has a legal right to obtain the materials, defendant must produce those materials. If the materials are truly not within defendant's possession or control, defense counsel must certify as such pursuant to Rule 26(g). Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g) (“[E]very discovery response or objection must be signed by at least one attorney or record ... By signing, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry [the disclosure] is complete and correct.”).

Defendant states that this Request has been answered in that the documents in defendant's custody and control related to the arrest have already been produced. Defense counsel shall again certify pursuant to Rule 26(g) that all requested material legally in defendant's possession, custody, and control have been produced.

Defendant states that “this named defendant does not have a video of [plaintiff's] arrest and interrogation” and that she is not sure whether any of these items exist. Defendant has an affirmative duty to make a reasonable inquiry into the existence of the materials sought by this request. Defendant's duty is to respond to discovery requests not only on the basis of her own knowledge, but also with regard to the knowledge of other persons that reasonably can be obtained through investigation. See e.g., Hamstein Cumberland Music Group v. Estate of Williams, 2008 WL 268297, *6 (N.D. Okla. 2008). Therefore, defendant shall make a reasonable investigation into of the materials sought in Request No. 8. If defendant finds that any of these materials do exist and if she has the practical ability to obtain them, then they are deemed to be in her possession or control and she must produce them. Otherwise, defense counsel must certify under Rule 26(g) that such an investigation was made and, to the best of his knowledge, the materials do not exist, or are not in defendant Francisco's possession or control.

Defendant asserts she did not participate in the drug case since she was at plaintiff's residence for a theft case. She explains the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation was working the drug case, not her. The Court finds defendant's response to be appropriate. Therefore, Request No. 11 is denied.

Defendant explains that the policy plaintiff seeks does not exist. The Court finds the response to be insufficient. Although City of Laramie v. Facerestablished that the liability pooling is a statutory funding mechanism rather than a purchase of insurance, plaintiff's inquiry is clear. Plaintiff seeks information regarding liability coverage, if any, defendant may have based on plaintiff's claims. Therefore, defendant shall produce the requested information if it is within her possession, custody, or control, or otherwise certify pursuant to Rule 26(g).

Based on the foregoing, defendant must supplement her responses to the above contested requests for production or submit Rule 26(g) certification on or before November 12, 2010.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Defendants Stacia Francisco's Production of Documents be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth herein. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Stacia Francisco shall supplement her responses to the contested Requests for Production on or before November 12, 2010.

Dated this 5th day of November, 2010.