On May 25, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff M.L.H's Motion to Compel (the “May 25 Ruling”). (Dkt. No. 61.) On May 27, 2021, counsel for Plaintiff, Narine Mkrtchyan (“Mkrtchyan”) notified the Court via an email to chambers of an urgent need to resolve the remaining disputes concerning deficiencies in the Defendants' production of documents. Although the email did not comply with the Court's procedures, which require a joint statement of the parties' positions, on May 28, 2021, the Court, sensitive to the upcoming June 21, 2021 discovery cut-off, scheduled a video discovery status conference to address any remaining discovery disputes. (Dkt. No. 62.) On that same date, Plaintiff's counsel sent an email addressed to the Magistrate Judge's personal email (along with all other counsel) indicating that she was unavailable on June 7, 2021 because of pre-arranged travel plans. Through chambers staff, the Court notified Mkrtchyan that the Court does not respond to email communications from litigants and counsel should not use the judge's personal email for case communications. Mkrtchyan did not file a request to continue the discovery conference. On June 3, 2021, Plaintiff M.L.H. filed the Request for Clarification. (Dkt. No. 63.) On June 7, 2021, the Court held a discovery status conference. (Dkt. No. 64.) Mkrtchyan did not appear at the status conference. (Id.)

On June 9, 2021, Defendants City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Police Department (“Defendants”) filed a Response to Plaintiff's Request for Clarification. (Dkt. No. 65.) Plaintiff did not file any Reply to Defendants' Response, but on June 14, 2021 filed “Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate's Holding Discovery Conference Without Plaintiff MLH Represented on June 7.” (Dkt. No. 66.)

A. Plaintiff's Positions

The Request for Clarification indicates that the May 25 Ruling failed to address three of Plaintiff's Requests for Production—Nos. 34 (concerning use of force reports), 31 (personnel complaint reports), and 37 (Internal Affairs investigations into Plaintiff's Incident)—and raised concerns that Defendant City of Los Angeles had (1) not produced other responsive items of discovery that the Court ordered to be produced and (2) failed to produce a privilege log that complied with the Court's order. (See Request for Clarification at 1-3.) Attached to the Request for Clarification is Declaration of Narine Mkrtchyan (“Mkrtchyan Decl.”), which states, inter alia, that the “ambiguity in the Court orders needs to be lifted for Plaintiff to gather responsive records to RFPs 31, 34, 37.” (Mkrtchyan Decl. ¶ 5.)

B. Defendants' Positions.

*2 In Defendants' Response to the Request for Clarification, Defendants represent that they have complied with the Court's orders and have “produced all the materials concerning this case that the Court has ordered Defendants to produce.” (Response at 2.) In particular, Defendants state that they have

(Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).)

A party may obtain discovery concerning any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and is proportional to the needs of the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information need not be admissible to be discoverable. Id. District courts have broad discretion in controlling discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

A. RFP No. 37 – Internal Affairs Investigation

As an initial matter and consistent with the Court's acknowledgement at the June 7 Status Conference, Plaintiff is correct that in ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, the Court inadvertently failed to address RFP No. 37 (seeking internal affairs investigation documents). The documents sought in RFP No. 37 are relevant and proportional to the claims and defenses in this consolidated civil rights action. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Further, internal investigation documents are routinely deemed discoverable in the context of § 1983 civil rights actions alleging excessive force and wrongful death, such as here. (See, e.g., Estate of Bui v. City of Westminster Police Dept., 224 F.R.D. 591, 594 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (affirming magistrate judge's order compelling production of internal affairs investigation). Accordingly, the Request for Clarification is GRANTED as to RFP No. 37 and the Court's May 25 Order is hereby amended to indicate that Plaintiff's Motion Compel is granted with respect RFP No. 3.

The Court notes, however, that although the Court overlooked RFP No. 37 in its May 25 Order, Defendants represent that they have produced all of the internal affairs documents responsive to RFP No. 37. (Response at 2.)

B. RFP Nos. 31 (administrative complaints) and 34 (sustained use of force reports)

Plaintiff's RFP No. 31 seeks

*3 (Dkt. No. 52-4 at p. 32 (Motion to Compel, Ex. A).) In an order dated April 12, 2021, following a pre-motion discovery conference, the Court ordered production of documents responsive to FP No. 31 as part of McBride's LAPD personnel file. (Dkt. No. 44 at 3.) Following the April 12 discovery conference, the Court conducted two rounds of in camera review of Officer McBride's personnel records and ordered Defendants to produce all responsive documents from those records pursuant to the parties' Stipulated Protective Order. (Dkt Nos. 50, 55, and see Dkt. No. 61 at 15.)

In the Request for Clarification, Plaintiff acknowledges that the Court ordered disclosure of documents responsive to RFP No. 31 but contends that “no responsive records have been produced reflecting personnel complaint reports.” (Request for Clarification at 2.) Defendants maintain that consistent with the Court's orders following in camera review, all responsive documents that the Court ordered to be produced have been produced. (Response at 2.)

With respect to RFP No. 34, following the April 12, 2021 discovery conference that preceded Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, the Court ordered Defendants to produce on or before April 19, 2021, “any sustained use of force reports” in response to RFP No. 34. (See Dkt. No. 44 at p. 3.) Here too, Plaintiff argues that no responsive documents have been produced. (Request for Clarification at 2.) Defendants respond that no sustained use of force complaints exist, “so none were produced” and insist that Defendants cannot produce what they do not have. (Response at 2.)

Plaintiff maintains that she has received no documents responsive to RFP Nos. 31 and 37 and “needs further Court orders.” (Request for Clarification at 2.) It is unclear, however, what such “further” orders would be with respect to a request to clarify the May 25 Order. Plaintiff concedes, as she must, that the Court expressly ordered production of information responsive to RFP Nos. 31 and 34. (Id.) Further, Plaintiff does not identify any ambiguity or omission in the Court's orders regarding RFP Nos. 31 and 34 that requires clarification. To the extent Plaintiff's fundamental argument is that Defendants have not complied with the Court's May 25 Order, that contention is not remedied by any clarification of the Court's May 25 Order.

Accordingly, the Request for Clarification as to RFP Nos. 31 and 34 is DENIED.

C. Privilege Log

Finally, Plaintiff maintains that Defendants have not complied with the Court's May 25 Order requiring Defendants to produce a proper privilege log. (Request for Clarification at 3.) Defendants, however, represent that they have produced a revised privilege log as required by the May 25 Order. (Response at 2.)

Because Plaintiff does not argue that the Court's May 25 Order is unclear as to the privilege log, only that Defendants have not done what the Court required, the Court finds that there is nothing to clarify with respect to the May 25, 2021 Order concerning Defendants' privilege log. Additionally, Plaintiff has presented no basis for “further orders” on this issue at this time. Accordingly, the Request for Clarification is DENIED as to Defendants' privilege log.

For the reasons outlined above, the Request for Clarification is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's RFP No. 37, but Defendants represent they produced all responsive information.[1] The Request for Clarification is DENIED in all other respects. This ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to seek an appropriate remedy regarding alleged deficiencies in Defendants' production and/or compliance with the Court's orders.

*4 Further, to the extent disputes remain concerning the adequacy of Defendants' privilege log, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding any particular deficiencies and present a joint request to schedule a discovery conference on this issue pursuant to the Court's procedures.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Plaintiff argues that the internal affairs documents Defendants produced are incomplete and “the City has not produced the complete Internal Affairs investigation into the incident.” (Request for Clarification at 2.) But this argument does not identify any ambiguity or omission in the May 25 Order that requires clarification. As noted above, a request for clarification of the Court's order is not the appropriate mechanism to remedy alleged deficiencies in a party's discovery responses.