Black v. City of San Diego
3:21-cv-01990
| S.D. Cal. | Mar 28, 2025Background
- Lance Black filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of San Diego and multiple police officers, alleging excessive force, false arrest, racial discrimination, and related claims stemming from a traffic stop incident.
- Plaintiff alleges officers stopped him due to his race and luxury car, escalated the situation, used force, fabricated charges, and deleted his phone video.
- Plaintiff brings claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and multiple California statutory and federal civil rights violations (including Monell claims against the City).
- Plaintiff moved to compel supplemental responses to several discovery requests, including production of documents (RFPs), answers to an interrogatory, and responses to requests for admission (RFAs).
- Defendants opposed, citing privacy, overbreadth, proportionality, and official information privilege, and produced some personnel/disciplinary records under a protective order.
- The action before the court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses; the court grants in part and denies in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of personnel/internal affairs files (RFPs 33,35,36) | Files are relevant to Monell and civil rights claims | Official information privilege and privacy concerns | Court orders disclosure with “Counsel Only” protection |
| Interrogatory No. 3 (arrest history by Officer Killinger) | Arrest data, including race, relevant for Monell proof | Overbroad, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, privacy violations | Denied; not shown relevant, overbroad |
| Requests for Admission Nos. 13–14 (discipline/investigation of officers) | Relevant to Monell and pattern/practice theories | Vague, overbroad, privileged, protected personnel info | Granted; requests are relevant, not overbroad |
| Protective order scope | Need to balance privacy with civil rights discovery | Disclosure to counsel risks eventual public release and chilling effect on officers/public | Protective order modified for “Counsel Only” designation |
Key Cases Cited
- Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (balancing privacy interests in police personnel files against interests in civil rights discovery)
- Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (explaining requirements to invoke official information privilege)
- Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizing qualified privilege for official information and balancing test)
- Green v. Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (holding governmental privilege does not preclude personnel file discovery in § 1983 actions)