Martin Medina Arroyo v. California Highway Patrol, et al.

Opinion

MARTIN MEDINA ARROYO, Case No. 25-cv-00439-PCP (VKD)

Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION v. TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDINGS CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 43 Defendants.

Plaintiff Martin Medina Arroyo moves to compel defendants California Highway Patrol (“CHP”) and Jared Cantu to produce “the surveillance video and audio/video recordings from inside the San Jose CHP Station on Monterey Road from the date of [Mr. Arroyo’s] arrest” on April 18, 2024. Dkt. No. 43 at 1; see Dkt. No. 1-1 (Compl. ¶ 10). Defendants oppose the motion, principally on the ground that no such video or audio recordings from the CHP station exist. Dkt. No. 45. The Court finds this dispute suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The record presented includes a declaration from retired Deputy Attorney General Kymberly E. Speer, who was counsel of record for defendants until her retirement on June 5, 2026. Dkt. No. 45-1. Ms. Speer attests that during discovery, she investigated whether the video and audio recordings Mr. Arroyo seeks exist and determined that they do not. Id. ¶¶ 2, 11-12, Ex. C. Ms. Speer personally informed Mr. Arroyo’s former counsel of the results of her investigation, and defendants formally responded to Mr. Arroyo’s RFP No. 2, seeking video and audio relating to Mr. Arroyo’s arrest, stating in relevant part: “Defendant has made a diligent search and made ] any and believes no other responsive documents have ever existed.” /d. 999, 12. Mr. Arroyo has 2 provided the Court with no contrary information supporting his assertion that video or audio 3 recordings from inside the CHP station exist and are being withheld. 4 The Court cannot order defendants to produce recordings they do not have. Defendants’ 5 formal response to Mr. Arroyo’s RFP No. 2 and Ms. Speer’s declaration reflect that defendants 6 conducted a reasonable search and could not locate the video or audio recordings Mr. Arroyo 7 seeks. As the party moving to compel production, Mr. Arroyo must support his motion with more 8 than his own assertion that the recordings exist and have not been produced. See Mizrahi v. 9 Google LLC, 732 F. Supp. 3d 1068, 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2024) (discussing authority). In the absence of any evidence suggesting that defendants are withholding responsive recordings from the CHP station, Mr. Arroyo has not shown he is entitled to an order compelling their production. 12 Accordingly, the motion to compel is denied. 14 ] Dated: July 2, 2026 Virginia K. DeMarchi United States Magistrate Judge