Lynn Hughes, et al. v. County of Kern, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00712
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYNN HUGHES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00712-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER VACATING MARCH 2, 2026, MID- DISCOVERY STATUS CONFERENCE 13 v. (Docs. 11, 14) 14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs Lynn Hughes, individually and as a successor in interest to Cole Hughes, and 18 Emily Hughes (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 19 April 21, 2025, in the Kern County Superior Court, case number BCV-25-101456. (Doc. 1). 20 Defendants County of Kern, Kern County Sheriff’s Office (“KCSO”), and Nicholas Rocha 21 (collectively, “Defendants”) removed the case to this Court on June 11, 2025. Id. On September 22 8, 2025, the Court entered the operative scheduling order setting forth discovery, motion and 23 pretrial and trial dates and deadlines, including, relevant here, the non-expert discovery deadline 24 on April 6, 2026. See (Doc. 11). 25 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint mid-discovery status report, filed on February 26 23, 2026. (Doc. 14). In their report, the parties represent that Plaintiffs served Rule 26 disclosures 27 on October 9, 2025, and requested copies of the relevant incident report and associated documents including photos and videos beginning in April 2024. The parties further represent that 1 Defendants’ “ongoing response even as recent as November[] 2025, has been that the documents 2 are part of an ongoing investigation and the documents could not be produced.” Id. at 2. It appears 3 that Defendants’ delay in producing the incident report and associated documents has inhibited 4 Plaintiffs from proceeding with Defendants’ depositions. See id. (“Plaintiffs intend to depose 5 Deputies and others involved after review of the incident report.”). In light of these circumstances, 6 the parties represent that an extension of discovery deadlines “may be necessary due to the ongoing 7 investigation.” Id. 8 Governing Legal Standard 9 Rule 26 provides that a party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 10 that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, 11 considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 12 parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 13 discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 14 outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant here, if a party responding to a 15 Rule 34 request for production of documents fails to comply with the request, the propounding 16 party may seek relief from court through a motion to compel pursuant to Rule 37. See Fed. R. Civ. 17 P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). “[T]he party moving to compel bears the burden of demonstrating why the 18 [responding party’s] objections are not justified.” Harris v. Quillen, No. 1:17-cv-01370-DAD- 19 SAB (PC), 2020 WL 4251069, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2020) (citing cases). “The party who resists 20 discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of 21 clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objection.” Jadwin v. Cnty. Of Kern, No. 1:07-cv-0026- 22 OWW-TAG, 2008 WL 2025093, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2008) (quotation and citations omitted). 23 Also relevant here, federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official 24 information, referred to alternatively as the “official information privilege” or the “law 25 enforcement privilege.” See Duenez v. City of Manteca, No. 2:11-cv-1820 LKK AC, 2013 WL 26 684654, at *4-5 & n.1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013) (citing Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of 27 Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir.1975)); accord Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 1 have seen and considered the contents of the documents and himself have formed the view that on 2 grounds of public interest they ought not to be produced and state with specificity the rationale of 3 the claimed privilege.” Id. at *5 (quoting Kerr, 511 F.2d at 198) (internal quotations omitted). The 4 party invoking the privilege must at the outset make a “substantial threshold showing” by way of 5 a declaration of affidavit from a responsible official with personal knowledge of the matters to be 6 attested to in the affidavit. Id. (quoting Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613 (N.D. Cal. 7 1995)). 8 A party who receives a discovery request “must, within the time permitted by rule to 9 respond or object, serve and file an objection that invokes the official information privilege by 10 name” and “sufficiently identify the documents so as to afford the requesting party an opportunity 11 to challenge the assertion of privilege.” Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 300 (C.D Cal. 1992) 12 (citations omitted). Additionally, “the party must submit, at the time it files and serves its response 13 to the discovery request, a declaration or affidavit, under oath or subject to the penalty of perjury, 14 from the head of the department which has control over the matter.” Id. (citing Kerr, 511 F.2d at 15 198). This affidavit or declaration must contain specific, detailed information to permit the 16 receiving party and the court to assess the propriety of privilege assertion. See id. 17 Discussion 18 First, the operative scheduling order directs the parties to “promptly seek” an informal 19 conference with the Court if they are unable to resolve a discovery dispute through meet and confer 20 efforts. (Doc. 11 at 4). Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ request many months ago for Defendants to 21 produce what appears to be key materials relating to their claims, and notwithstanding Defendants’ 22 reported refusal to produce said documents, Plaintiffs have not sought relief from the 23 Court. Although in the parties’ joint mid-discovery status report Plaintiffs mention in passing that 24 they may at an unidentified time request extensions of discovery deadlines, it is unclear how, under 25 the circumstances, they could meet Rule 16(b)’s good cause standard to be entitled to any such 26 extensions when they seemingly have accepted Defendants’ refusal to comply with their discovery 27 requests throughout almost the entirety of the period for taking non-expert discovery. See Johnson ] Second, based on the information provided in the parties’ joint mid-discovery status report, 2 | Defendants appear to take the position that they may unilaterally withhold from production 3 | documents merely because they relate to an ongoing criminal investigation. However, even had 4 | Defendants attempted to satisfy the stringent procedural requirements for properly invoking the 5 | law enforcement privilege summarized above, they additionally would be obligated to demonstrate 6 | that the balance of competing interests—which is “moderately pre-weighted in favor of 7 | disclosure”—warrants withholding. Duenez, 2013 WL 684654, at *5-6 (quoting Soto, 162 F.R.D. 8 | at 613). 9 Conclusion and Order 10 In short, although the Court’s impressions admittedly are informed solely by the 11 || generalized summary information provided by the parties to the Court in their joint mid-discovery 12 || status report, it appears the parties have failed to diligently pursue nonexpert discovery during the 13 | time period granted—which, as the Court admonished the parties upon the scheduling of the case, 14 | is tethered to deadlines “considered to be firm.” (Doc. 11 at 9). 15 Accordingly, the Mid-Discovery Status Conference set for March 2, 2026, is 16 | VACATED. The parties are reminded of their obligation to diligently pursue and timely complete 17 || discovery within the scheduled case management dates. 18 | ITIS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ February 24, 2026 | Wr bY 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28