Smith v. City of Bakersfield, 1:22-cv-00494

Plaintiff Melton Smith alleges excessive force and related claims stemming from a December 28, 2020 incident, naming the City of Bakersfield and others as defendants.
The action was originally filed in California state court and removed to federal court on April 26, 2022.
Plaintiff served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice seeking testimony from the City about its internal affairs investigation into the incident, among other topics.
Defendant objected, refusing to produce a witness and arguing the topics were irrelevant because there was no Monell claim.
The discovery dispute was submitted to the court for resolution via an informal procedure, resulting in this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Relevance of testimony about internal investigation	The topics noticed are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ defenses (like good faith, justification, etc.)	Internal investigation is irrelevant without a Monell claim, and findings have no bearing on Plaintiff’s claims	Internal affairs investigation and findings are relevant, even without a Monell claim
Appropriateness of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on these topics	Proper subject of discovery under Rule 26; may lead to relevant evidence	Beyond the scope of permissible discovery given the nature of Plaintiff’s claims	Such discovery is appropriate; objections overruled
Whether defendant must produce a prepared witness	Defendant does not need to produce a witness because the information sought is irrelevant	Plaintiff entitled to examine designated topics	Defendant must produce and prepare a deponent on the identified topics
Discovery of findings about unsatisfactory work performance and supervisor responsibilities	These findings may reveal lapses of policy or relevant information	Such findings unlikely to lead to relevant information	Discovery on these topics allowed; cannot be determined irrelevant in advance

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (defining broad scope of relevance in discovery)
Jadwin v. County of Kern, 2008 WL 2025093 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (discussing discovery standards and burdens)