*1 On April 12, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant County of Los Angeles to Produce Documents (“Joint Stip.”). (Dkt. No. 43). On April 14, 2020, the Court ordered Defendant County of Los Angeles (“Defendant” or “County”) to submit a supplemental memorandum setting forth whether any responsive materials are being withheld in response to the discovery requests at issue. (Dkt. No. 45). On April 16, 2020, Defendant filed its supplemental brief (Dkt. No. 46).[1] On April 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed objections to Defendant's supplemental brief. (Dkt. No. 47). On April 21, 2020, Defendant filed a supplement to the motion to compel (Dkt No. 49). On April 23, 2020, Defendant filed objections to Plaintiff's supplement (Dkt. No. 50). A telephonic hearing was held on May 4, 2020. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED.

A. Background

This § 1983 action arises out of an officer-involved shooting. On August 12, 2018, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputies Nikolis Perez and Jonathan Rojas (collectively, the “Deputies”) responded to a call of an armed robbery near the Neuva Maravilla Housing Community in East Los Angeles. (Dkt. No. 28 (“FAC”) ¶ 22). Plaintiff alleges that Anthony Vargas (“Decedent”) was walking home when the Deputies attempted to question him. (Id.). Decedent panicked and fled on foot. (Id.). Deputies then shot him multiple times and killed him. (Id.). Plaintiff, who is Decedent's mother, alleges that Decedent was unarmed at the time of the shooting. (FAC ¶ 25).

The First Amended Complaint asserts the following claims: (1) battery causing wrongful death against the Deputies; (2) negligence causing wrongful death against the Deputies; (3) violation of the Bane Act, Cal. Civil Code § 52.1; (4) violation of § 1983 (use of unreasonable or excessive force) against the Deputies; (5) violation of § 1983 (due process) against the Deputies; and (6) violation of § 1983 (unconstitutional custom or policy) against the County (Monell claim). (FAC ¶¶ 29–74). The Monell claim is based on Plaintiff's allegation that there was a sheriff deputy gang, the “Los Banditos,” controlling the day-to-day activities of the East Los Angeles Sheriff's precinct, the precinct that services the Neuva Maravilla Housing Community, where Decedent was killed. (Joint Stip. at 1).

On September 23, 2019, the County filed a motion to dismiss the Monell claim. (Dkt. No. 29). On December 4, 2019, the Court denied the motion, finding that the First Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges facts to support the existence and content of a widespread preexisting custom or practice “allowing the rogue Banditos group to exist, which encouraged violence and the use of excessive force including shootings of unarmed persons, and the County knew of and failed to stop or discipline the group.” (Dkt. No. 36 at 8). The Court found that the First Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges that “ ‘[c]aptains, sergeants, lieutenants, [ ] and supervisors’ as well as deputies were members of the Banditos gang, that the gang operates out of the East Los Angeles station, and that Sergeant Estrada and others ‘made sure that Banditos members were not disciplined.’ ” (Id.) (citing FAC ¶¶ 77–79). “Plaintiff has [also] pled facts to raise the inference that the County knew of the Banditos and their use of fear and intimidation to silence deputies from reporting acts of misconduct; that some supervisory officials were involved in the gang; that the County did nothing to prevent the gang or discipline those involved; and that the gang encouraged deputies to use violence and excessive force, specifically shootings of unarmed persons.” (Id. at 9). Thus, the Court found that “Plaintiff has alleged a Monell claim based on an unconstitutional custom, practice or policy theory.” (Id.). The First Amended Complaint also sufficiently alleges that the County's custom or practice “caused” the injury: “Plaintiff alleges that the Deputies ... were ‘members or prospects (aka “puppies”)’ of the gang and knew of the failure to discipline deputies in excessive force shootings; and that they ‘could gain entry’ into the gang by ‘using excessive force, including shooting those who are unarmed,’ and that they were encouraged to do so.” (Id.) (citing FAC ¶¶ 77, 79, 80, 85, 121, 124). Accordingly, because “Plaintiff has alleged facts to give Defendant fair notice of the alleged preexisting custom or practice,” the motion to dismiss was denied. (Id. at 9–10).

B. Motion to Compel

*2 On May 1, 2019, and February 3, 2020, Plaintiff served her first and second requests for production of documents, to include the requests at issue in its motion to compel, to which Defendant objected on March 4, 2020. (Joint Stip. at 1–2). The parties met and conferred on April 3, 2020, but the document requests remained in dispute. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff now seeks to compel Defendant to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff Request Nos. 13, 16, 18, 21, 32, and 36. (Id. at 2–3).

A party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Nevertheless, information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. Thus, relevance, for purposes of discovery, is defined broadly, and “[d]iscovery of nonprivileged information not admissible in evidence remains available so long as it is otherwise within the scope of discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee's note (2015); see Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). However, under amended Rule 26(b), discovery must be “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This proportionality requirement “is designed to avoid ... sweeping discovery that is untethered to the claims and defenses in litigation.” Mfg. Automation & Software Sys., Inc. v. Hughes, No. CV 16-8962, 2017 WL 5641120, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017).

In responding to discovery requests, the responding party must affirmatively state “whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). “A proper written response should also provide sufficient information for the requesting party, and the court, to be satisfied that the responding party conducted an adequate investigation for responsive materials.” In re Rivera, No. CV 16-4676, 2017 WL 5163695, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2017); see Atcherley v. Clark, No. 12 CV 0225, 2014 WL 4660842, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) (“In responding to discovery requests, a reasonable inquiry must be made, and if no responsive documents or tangible things exist, the responding party should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence.”) (citation omitted).

Motions to compel are governed by Rule 37, which allows a party to “move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection ... if ... a party fails to produce documents ... as requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)–(iv). Rule 34 provides that a party may serve on any other party a request to produce documents or electronically stored information within the party's possession, custody, or control that is otherwise within the scope of Rule 26. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A). “Upon a motion to compel discovery, the movant has the initial burden of demonstrating relevance.” United States v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., No. CV 13-0779, 2014 WL 1647385, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014). District courts have “broad discretion” to control discovery and in determining relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and alteration omitted).

C. Discussion

1. Defendant's Boilerplate Objections Are Overruled

*3 Defendant makes a number of boilerplate objections in responding to the discovery requests. But “boilerplate objections do not suffice and there is no ground upon which to reasonably argue otherwise.” Marti v. Baires, No. 08-CV-00653, 2012 WL 2029720, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) (emphasis in original); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (“For each item or category, the response must either state that inspection ... will be permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.”) (emphasis added); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981) (“objections should be plain enough and specific enough so that the court can understand in what way the [discovery requests] are alleged to be objectionable”) (emphasis added).

a. Privacy and Confidentiality Objections

Defendant contends that Plaintiff seeks documents “subject to rights of privacy and confidentiality.” Confidentiality, however, is not a valid objection under Rule 26(b). Walt Disney, 168 F.R.D. at 283 (“[O]nly privilege, not confidentiality, is a valid objection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).”). Further, the Court entered the parties' agreed Protective Order (Dkt. No. 17), which gives the parties the option of designating appropriate information as “Confidential,” thus protecting confidential, proprietary, or private information from improper public disclosure. Cf. Palaniappan v. Norton Health Sound Corp., No. 10 CV 0175, 2012 WL 13032959, at *3 (D. Alaska Mar. 7, 2012) (“[A]bsent a motion for a protective order, confidentiality is not a valid objection to discovery requests.”). Defendant's privacy and confidentiality objections are OVERRULED.

b. Overbroad, lacking temporal or topical limitations and Unduly Burdensome

Defendant objects that the discovery requests are overbroad, not limited in temporal or topical scope, and unduly burdensome. During the hearing, the parties agreed that responsive documents would be limited to the 2012 to 2018 time frame, to encompass the time when Deputies Rojas and Perez started working for the Sheriff's Department until the August 2018 shooting of the decedent. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer regarding the topical scope of the requests.

Defendants have not met their burden “to demonstrate that production of nonprivileged, responsive documents during this period would be disproportionately burdensome.” City of Seattle v. ZyLAB N. Am., LLC, No. C17-0790, 2017 WL 4418636, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2017); see N. Am. Co. for Life & Health Ins. v. Philpot, No. 08 CV 270, 2009 WL 10672468, at *4 & n.2 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2009) (overruling party's discovery objections because it did not quantify its asserted burden to producing the requested information). “It is well-established that the burden is on the objecting party to show grounds for failing to provide the requested discovery.” Baykeeper v. Kramer Metals, Inc., No. CV 07-3849, 2009 WL 10671577, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2009); see Bible v. Rio Properties, Inc., 246 F.R.D. 614, 618 (C.D. Cal. 2007); Sullivan v. Prudential Ins. Co., 233 F.R.D. 573, 575 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Defendants cannot simply invoke generalized objections without describing, in specific detail, how each request is overbroad and unduly burdensome by submitting affidavits or other evidence describing the nature of the burden. See Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 85 F.R.D. 292, 296–97 Pa. 1980) (The responding party “must show specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules, each interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden.”). Here, with the exception of asserting the official information privilege for records of ongoing or incomplete investigations, Defendants have neither explained how each request is overbroad or burdensome nor provided any evidence describing the nature of the burden. Defendant's unduly burdensome objections (except for records pertaining to pending or incomplete investigations) are OVERRULED.

2. RFP No. 13

*4 Request No. 13 seeks documents related to internal affairs investigations of the Deputies for use of excessive force, including the shooting of Decedent and any prior or subsequent incidents. (Joint Stip. at 2, 8–9). In its supplemental brief, Defendant asserts that there are no responsive documents relating to any prior incidents and that responsive documents with respect to the subject incident consist of the internal affairs investigation which has not yet begun. (Joint Stip. at 14-15, 18-19; Declaration of William Jaeger (“Jaeger Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-6). Defendant asserts the official information privilege[2] to withhold production of these records during the pendency of the internal affairs investigation but will produce responsive documents relating to the subject incident after the internal affairs investigation is completed. (Joint Stip. at 14-15; Dkt. No. 46 at 4-5).

Defendant contends that any subsequent use-of-force incidents are not relevant to any party's claim and not proportional to the needs of the case. (Joint Stip. at 21–25). Defendant identifies the internal affairs investigation of Defendant Perez' subsequent incident (one year after the subject incident), as responsive to this request but since this investigation has not begun, no responsive documents are being withheld. (Id., Jaeger Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Dkt. No. 46 at 5). Defendant's relevancy and proportionality objections to the production of Defendant Perez's subsequent incident internal affairs investigation are OVERRULED. Subsequent incidents may provide circumstantial evidence that the County has a widespread policy or practice ratifying the violation of constitutional rights or of failing to train its deputies. The documents could also demonstrate that County decision makers condone any malfeasance by Deputies. Defendant shall produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Request No. 13.

3. RFP No. 16

Request No. 16 seeks records of the County's discipline files[3] of the Deputies, allowing the County to redact the Deputies' personal information, including social security numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, health and other insurance information, family information, medical information, workers' compensation information, etc. (Joint Stip. at 2, 26). Defendant confusingly claims there are no responsive documents but also that documents “are withheld on Defendants' rights of privacy and confidentiality and upon grounds that Plaintiff has refused to agree to any reasonable, relevant topical and/or temporal limitations.” (Compare Joint Stip. at 29–30, with Dkt. No. 46 at 5). To the extent that Defendant is making a relevancy argument (Joint Stip. at 30–33), the Court finds otherwise. The discipline files are relevant to Plaintiff's Monell claim that the County was the “moving force” behind the Decedent's death, either by failing to train or imposing inadequate discipline. Defendant's relevancy objection is OVERRULED.

Defendant cites California Penal Code § 832.7 for the proposition that “the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding.” (Dkt. No. 46 at 7). “Federal courts, however, have found that § 832.7 is not applicable in evaluating discovery disputes in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.” Anderson v. City of Rialto, No. EDCV 16-1915, 2017 WL 10562686, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2017) (collecting cases). As discussed above, Defendant's privacy and confidential objections (Dkt. No. 46 at 6–7) are OVERRULED.

During the telephonic hearing, the parties agreed that responsive records would encompass the years 2012 to 2018. The parties must meet and confer to address Defendant's concerns regarding topical limitations, permissible redactions to protect privacy concerns and whether the protective order in this case can sufficiently safeguard the disclosure of such information. During the hearing, Defendants' counsel agreed to produce records pertaining to discipline for use of deadly force and dishonesty. (See Joint Stip at 37-38). Defendant shall produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Request No. 16. Following the parties' meet and confer, Defendants may submit responsive records to the Court for in camera review.

4. RFP No. 18

*5 Request No. 18 seeks documents pertaining to any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by the Deputies. (Joint Stip. at 2, 35). Defendant contends that there are no responsive records regarding prior incidents and therefore, no such records are being withheld. (Joint Stip at 36; Jaeger Decl., ¶¶5, 8; Dkt. No. 46 at 5). With respect to the subject incident, Defendant maintains that it has already produced all documents pertaining to the homicide investigation and identifies additional responsive records as the internal affairs investigation which has not yet begun. (Joint Stip at 38). Defendant will produce responsive records once the investigation is completed. (Id., at 39).

Defendant identifies documents relating to Deputy Perez' subsequent incident as responsive to this request but claims that it is not withholding any such records because the internal affairs investigation regarding this subsequent incident has not yet begun, (Jaeger Decl. ¶7), but maintains that any subsequent use-of-force incidents are not relevant to any party's claim and not proportional to the needs of the case. (Joint Stip. at 34–36). To the contrary, as discussed above, subsequent incidents could provide circumstantial evidence that the County has a widespread policy or practice ratifying the violation of constitutional rights or of failing to train its deputies. The documents could also demonstrate that County decision makers condone the Deputies' malfeasance. Defendant's relevancy and proportionality objection is OVERRULED. Defendant shall produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Request No. 18.

5. RFP No. 21

Request No. 21 seeks records related to the comprehensive study of deputy cliques or deputy gangs generated by former County Sheriff Jim McDonnell. (Joint Stip. at 2, 44). Defendant contends that the request is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case and also asserts privacy and confidentiality objections. (Joint Stip at 47; Dkt. No. 46 at 6–7). But the existence of deputy gangs and the County's knowledge of their existence are directly relevant to Plaintiff's Monell claim. (Dkt. No. 36 at 8–10) (denying motion to dismiss Monell claim). Whether either Deputy “has ever been accused of or investigated for allegedly being a member of any alleged clique or gang, including but not limited to the ‘Banditos,’ ” (Dkt. No. 46 at 7) is not material. In support of her Monell claim, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery whether “the County knew of the Banditos and their use of fear and intimidation to silence deputies from reporting acts of misconduct; that some supervisory officials were involved in the gang; that the County did nothing to prevent the gang or discipline those involved; and that the gang encouraged deputies to use violence and excessive force, specifically shootings of unarmed persons.” (Dkt. No. 36 at 9). Defendant's relevancy and proportionality objection is OVERRULED.

Defendant maintains that it is not in possession of any responsive records (Joint Stip at 52; Jaeger Decl. ¶ 9, 11; Dkt. No. 46 at 6). Plaintiff claims that this assertion is simply not credible. (Joint Stip at 46). Given the widespread negative publicity about deputy gangs during Sheriff McDonnell's tenure, see, e.g., United States v. Tanaka, 707 F. App'x 448 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing admission of evidence that the defendant Los Angeles County undersheriff was involved in a “deputy clique” or “deputy gang”); (Guizar Decl. ¶ 9 & Exs. I–J) (newspaper articles and April 2010 Civilian Oversight Commission Memorandum discussing “deputy cliques”), the County must have performed some internal investigations. Defendant contends that the exhibits Plaintiff has submitted are inadmissible hearsay, (Joint Stip. at 43-44), but, of course, information sought in discovery “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Moreover, the Court is not considering these exhibits to prove the truth of what is contained therein; instead, these exhibits provide circumstantial evidence that the County was under notice of widespread negative publicity that its Sheriff's Department contained “deputy gangs.” Defendant's insistence that it has no responsive documents is belied by its request that the Court review the documents in camera before allowing disclosure. (Joint Stip. at 56-58).

*6 Defendant shall produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Request No. 21 that are in its possession, custody, or control. In responding to Request No. 21, Defendant and its counsel shall make a good faith, thorough, and diligent search and produce all responsive documents and must certify that they made a reasonable inquiry and determined that their responses were complete and accurate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g); see Coppola v. Smith, No. 11-CV-1257, 2016 WL 726903, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2016) (“In responding to discovery requests, a reasonable inquiry must be made, and if no responsive documents or tangible things exist, the responding party should so state with sufficient specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the party made a reasonable inquiry and exercised due diligence.”) (citations omitted).

6. RFP No. 32

Request No. 32 seeks a list of the names of all deputies on the Sheriff's Brady list that were working at the East Los Angeles precinct at the time of the incident. (Joint Stip. at 2, 58). The so-called Brady list identifies Sheriff Department employees with potential Brady material in their personnel files. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 4). As noted above, Defendant's privacy and confidentiality objections are OVERRULED. To the extent that responsive documents contain any deputies' personal information, including social security numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, health and other insurance information, family information, medical information, workers' compensation information, they may be redacted. Defendant's relevancy and proportionality objection is OVERRULED. Whether either Deputy or officer witnesses to Decedent's killing are on this list (Dkt. No. 46 at 7–8) is not material. The existence of deputies at the East Los Angeles precinct appearing on this list is relevant to Plaintiff's Monell claim. Given Defendant's assertion that only a single document is responsive (Dkt. No. 46 at 7-8), the Request is clearly proportional to the needs of the case. During the telephonic hearing, the Court granted Defendants' request to review any nonprivileged documents responsive to Request No. 32 in camera.

7. FFP No. 36

Request No. 36 seeks documents obtained by the Sheriff Department's Internal Affairs Bureau investigation of any deputy gang alleged to operate out of the East Los Angeles Sheriff's precinct. (Joint Stip. at 2-3, 68). Defendant objects to the request on grounds of relevance and acknowledges that it has documents pertaining to two ongoing investigations that “may be potentially responsive” but claims that they are protected from disclosure by the official information privilege because these investigations are incomplete and have reached no formal conclusion. (Jaeger Decl. ¶¶ 10, 13-15; Joint Stip. at 75-82). Defendant's insistence that very few responsive documents exist is belied by its contention that the request is extremely, broad, vague, unduly burdensome and oppressive and requires in camera review. (Joint Stip. at 82–87; Jaeger Decl. ¶¶ 18-20).

Defendant's relevancy and proportionality objection is also OVERRULED. The existence of deputy gangs and the County's knowledge of their existence are directly relevant to Plaintiff's Monell claim. (Dkt. No. 36 at 8–10) (denying motion to dismiss Monell claim). Whether either Deputy has been accused of being a member of the “Banditos” (Joint Stip. at 69) is not material. In support of her Monell claim, Plaintiff is entitled, as the Court determined in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss, to discovery whether “the County knew of the Banditos and their use of fear and intimidation to silence deputies from reporting acts of misconduct; that some supervisory officials were involved in the gang; that the County did nothing to prevent the gang or discipline those involved; and that the gang encouraged deputies to use violence and excessive force, specifically shootings of unarmed persons.” (Dkt. No. 36 at 9).

*7 Defendant shall produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Request No. 36 that are in its possession, custody, or control. In responding to Request No. 36, Defendant and its counsel shall make a good faith, thorough, and diligent search and produce all responsive documents and must certify that they made a reasonable inquiry and determined that their responses were complete and accurate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g); see Coppola, 2016 WL 726903, at *2. Any responsive documents that contain deputy personal information, including social security numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, health and other insurance information, family information, medical information, workers' compensation information, may be redacted.

D. Conclusion

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant County of Los Angeles to Produce Documents [43] is GRANTED. Defendants shall supplement their discovery responses, as described above, within 30 days of the date of this Order. The parties' requests for sanctions (Joint Stip. at 90, 92–94) are DENIED.

For any document that is withheld or redacted on the basis of an assertion of privilege, Defendant shall promptly provide a privilege log that substantially complies with Form No. 11:A (Privilege Log) as set forth in the California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020). If, after performing a good faith, diligent and thorough search for documents responsive to Request Nos. 16 (discipline files for Deputies), 18 (subsequent incident involving Deputy Perez), 21 (comprehensive study of deputy gangs), 32 (Brady list) and 36 (investigations of deputy gangs), Defendant identifies responsive documents that it believes should be reviewed in camera, Defendant may so move the Court, describing the general nature of the documents and establishing why they should be reviewed in camera by citing the appropriate legal standard. L.R. 79-6.2.

The parties are encouraged to avail themselves of the Court's informal discovery dispute resolution process to resolve any remaining discovery issues. (See Judge Sagar's Procedures).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

cc: Philip S. Gutierrez

United States District Judge

Defendant's request to strike the declaration of Cristian Contreras (Dkt. No. 46 at 8–9) is DENIED. Defendant had ample time pursuant to the local rules to respond to the declaration, if it chose to do so. (Dkt. No. 47 at 3–4); see L.R. 37-2.2.

Defendant may withhold production of records relating to any ongoing investigation(s) until the investigation(s) has concluded.

This term is used interchangeably with personnel files.