*1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully stopped him and searched his vehicle after a canine allegedly provided several false positive alerts. (Seventh Amended Complaint, ECF No. 114.) The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants to respond further to Plaintiff's written discovery initiatives. (Motion, ECF No. 130.)

After consideration of the parties’ arguments, I grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion.

On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff served on Defendants interrogatories and requests for documents. (Motion at 1.) Defendants responded on November 5, 2022. (Id.) Because Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the responses, he requested supplemental responses. (Id. at 2.) When he received no supplemental response, Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to file a motion to compel. (Id.; Notice, ECF No. 128.) Plaintiff later filed the motion to compel.[1]

Plaintiff attached to his motion Defendants’ written responses to Plaintiff's requests for documents. (Defendant Cejka's Response to Request for Production of Documents, ECF No. 130-3; Defendant Verhille's Response to Requests for Production of Documents, ECF No. 130-2.) The filings reflect that Defendants produced: (1) a video recording from a dashboard camera in Defendant Cejka's police cruiser, (ECF No. 82); (2) a copy of a warning Defendant Cejka issued to Plaintiff, (Attachment at 3–4, ECF No. 137-1); (3) fourteen redacted warnings Defendant Cejka issued to other motorists on the same day he stopped Plaintiff, (id. at 5–32); (4) a canine incident report authored by Defendant Verhille, (id. at 1–2); and (5) training certification documents for Defendant Verhille and canine Clint, (id. at 33–40). Plaintiff also filed with his reply the Defendants’ written responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories. (Defendant Cejka's Response to Interrogatories, ECF No. 130-5; Defendant Verhille's Response to Interrogatories, ECF No. 130-4.)

A. Document Requests

1. Recordings

Plaintiff does not accept Defendants’ assertion that there are no other audio or video recordings of the stop. In support of his contention, Plaintiff cites the increased use of body camera technology among law enforcement departments around the country, but he provides no evidence that state troopers regularly wore body cameras in Maine in 2013, when the stop occurred. The record lacks any evidence to suggest that Defendants created additional recordings or were wearing body cameras or additional audio devices at the time of the stop.

Because Defendant Cejka's vehicle had a dashcam, Plaintiff questions why Defendants have no dashcam video or audio recording from Defendant Verhille's vehicle. Plaintiff asserts there is a good faith basis to conclude that dashcam video exists because Maine State Police vehicles are equipped with dashcams that are programed to record constantly or to record whenever the vehicle's lights or sirens are activated. The Court will require Defendants to serve and file a written explanation regarding the status of the recording equipment on Defendant Verhille's vehicle on the day of the stop.

*2 Plaintiff also requested recordings or media capturing his actions or statements. Defendants asserted they produced all responsive records from the date of the stop. Plaintiff then requested records from the week of the stop. Defendants did not respond to the narrowed request. Because one of Plaintiff's allegations is that he was targeted for the stop and search rather than stopped for speeding, his request for any other records related his conduct or statements around the time of the stop would be relevant. The Court will order Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's revised request number five and produce any responsive records.

2. Video/Audio Segments

Plaintiff notes that within the dashcam audio-video recording Defendants produced, the audio and video do not start and stop at the same time. There apparently is no audio during the first portion of the video recording and the video ends before the audio ends. The reason for the discrepancy is not clear but is potentially explained as follows: (1) the audio and video were captured with different devices which were turned on and off at different times, (2) the audio and video tracks are misaligned in the digital file submitted to the Court, or (3) portions were muted or redacted pursuant to an assertion of privilege or for some other reason. The Court will direct Defendants to review the recordings and file a written explanation for the discrepancy.

3. Radio Logs or Transcripts

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to disclose logs or transcripts of radio communications between officers related to the traffic stop. Plaintiff, however, provides no evidence to support his assertion that Defendants or the Maine State Police ordinarily creates such documents or did so in this instance.

4. Assertion of Privilege

Plaintiff contends that Defendants withheld certain communications or records pursuant to a claim of privilege. For example, in response to some of Plaintiff's requests, Defendants objected that a request “seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege or material protected by the work product doctrine and/or material prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.” (Defendant Cejka's Response to Request for Production at 2.) Although Defendants also represented that “[s]ubject to objection, all responsive documents have previously been produced,” Plaintiff is unsure whether Defendants have asserted that no additional records exist, or whether Defendants have asserted that no additional unprivileged records exist.

The party asserting a privilege to withhold documents responsive to a legitimate discovery request bears the burden of demonstrating the applicability of the privilege. In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mr. S.), 662 F.3d 65, 69 (1st Cir. 2011). The standard requires “sufficient information to allow the court to rule intelligently on the privilege claim.” Marx v. Kelly, Hart & Hallman, P.C., 929 F.2d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 1991). Because Defendants’ written responses to some of Plaintiff's requests can reasonably be read to suggest Defendants withheld some documents based on a privilege, and because the Court cannot discern from the record whether Defendants contend a privilege applies in each instance, the Court will direct Defendants to serve and file a privilege log as to any responsive documents withheld based on a privilege.

5. Other Lawsuits and Disciplinary Records

Plaintiff originally sought all records from any prior lawsuits involving Defendants, but he subsequently limited the request to the docket numbers of any other lawsuits commenced against Defendants. Defendants argue the information is not relevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. Courts have reasonably concluded that prior complaints or investigations of official misconduct against the same defendants are often discoverable in federal civil rights cases unless protected by a privilege recognized under federal law. See Ali v. Long Creek Youth Dev. Ctr., No. 2:18-CV-00109-JAW, 2019 WL 302488, at *4 (D. Me. Jan. 21, 2019); Green v. Fulton, 157 F.R.D. 136, 139–41 (D. Me. 1994). Plaintiff's revised request seeks public rather than privileged information and appears to be proportional to the needs of this case with one modification: the discoverable information be limited to cases against Defendants based on their conduct as law enforcement officers.

*3 Plaintiff also requested records questioning Defendants’ performance as police officers, such as disciplinary records or the results of internal investigations. Defendants maintained that the information is privileged under Maine law and not proportional to the needs of the case. Because Defendants’ credibility and reliability are issues relevant to the assessment of Plaintiff's claims, Defendants’ proportionality argument is unpersuasive. Defendants have also not adequately explained why the state law exempting personnel files from the state's freedom of access law prohibits the production of or should limit this Court's ability to order the production of the information in this federal civil rights lawsuit. The Court will direct Defendants to file written argument on the issue.

6. Police Manual and Operating Procedures

Plaintiff requested a 2013 law enforcement manual and the standard operating procedures for police canines in 2013. Defendants asserted that the documents are not in their possession or control, that the documents are not relevant, and that the documents are available elsewhere, such as online or through public libraries. The material appears to be available from other sources and Plaintiff has produced no evidence to support a finding that the material is within Defendants’ possession and control.

7. Canine Records

Plaintiff seeks training, certification, and veterinary records to explore whether the canine unit was fit for duty. Defendants produced some certification records from 2013 but asserted that the remainder of the request was overbroad. The reliability of the canine that allegedly provided several false alerts is relevant to Plaintiff's challenge to the basis of the search.

Plaintiff also seeks all canine incident reports for the six months preceding the traffic stop. Defendants asserted they did not have possession or control of the documents and argued the materials are not sufficiently related to the issues presented in this case. The court is not persuaded the documents are not available to Defendants. Defendants’ concerns regarding the scope of the request, however, have some merit. The request for canine incident reports for a six-month period is overly broad and not proportionate to the needs of the case.

The Court will direct Defendants to supplement their response to the request for canine-related information.

8. Redacted Ticket Information

Plaintiff argues the extensive redactions to the tickets Defendants produced removed too much useful information. Some of the redactions, such as names and registration numbers, are reasonable considering the privacy interests of other motorists not involved in this lawsuit. The reasons for other redactions, however, is not apparent. The Court will direct Defendants to serve and file a log identifying the type of information redacted and the reasons for the redactions.

9. Other Unknown Documents

Plaintiff challenges Defendants’ assertion that they have no other responsive records or documents. Plaintiff provides no objective basis for the Court to conclude that additional discoverable records exist beyond the documents discussed in this order.

B. Interrogatories

1. Defendants’ Addresses and Dates of Birth

Defendants disclosed their names, but Defendants maintained that their addresses and dates of birth are protected from disclosure under Maine law. The Court will direct Defendants to file a written explanation, with relevant legal citations, to support their position that some limited personally identifiable information to permit Plaintiff to investigate Defendants’ background is not discoverable.

2. Answers Subject to Objections

In response to several interrogatories, Defendants stated an objection to the form of the question but also answered the question. Plaintiff sought to rephrase the questions to get an unqualified response, but Defendants did not respond to the rephrased questions. In their response to Plaintiff's motion, Defendants argued that they answered the interrogatories. Because Defendants did not reassert the objection in response to the interrogatories, the Court concludes the objection is withdrawn and Defendants’ answer is complete. The Court, however, will direct Defendants to confirm they have not withheld any information based on the asserted objections.

3. Other Searches

*4 Plaintiff asked Defendants how many other vehicles they searched on the same day as the traffic stop giving rise to this case and whether they found any contraband during the other searches. Defendants responded they did not recall. Plaintiff argues that Defendants can provide an answer because they have the canine unit incident reports. As noted above, the Court will direct Defendants to provide information for other canine incidents.

4. Conversation Between Defendants

Plaintiff sought a detailed description of Defendants conversation during a fifteen-second portion of the encounter. Defendants asserted that they did not recall the specifics of the conversation and that the only evidence on the issue was the audio from Defendant Cejka's recording device. Defendants have answered adequately and no further action from the Court is warranted.

5. Complaints, Reprimands

Plaintiff asked Defendants to describe any discipline or internal investigations made against them as police officers. Defendants argue that the information is confidential under state law and not proportional to the needs of the case. As discussed above, the Court will direct Defendants to file written argument regarding the applicability of the state law privilege to the requests.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion to compel. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, Defendants shall:

*5 Any objections to this Order shall be filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.

Dated this 21st day of February, 2023.