A motorist arrested for DUI sought discovery of a videotape made by police of his arrest, for use in his defense. Despite receiving notice of this request, the police destroyed the video a number of hours before a court hearing on his discovery requests, doing so under a department policy mandating the destruction of such videos 30 days after an arrest. The trial court properly imposed sanctions on the prosecution for this, barring the state from introducing testimony relating to what was shown on the video. This did not bar the prosecution, and the officer could still be questioned as to what his observations of the defendant at the scene had been, other than testifying about what the video showed. People v. Kladis, #110920, 2011 IL 110920, 2011 Ill. Lexis 2236, 2011 IL 110920.
     In a federal civil rights lawsuit against an officer alleging excessive use of force, the plaintiff asked to depose the officer's union representative. The trial court ruled that a conversation between the officer and his union representative would be privileged under federal law, but that the union representative, in this case, improperly attempted to invoke the privilege in refusing to answer even "foundational" questions. The privilege does not apply to answering questions about whether the conversation involved acting in the role of union representative. Bell v. Village of Streamwood, #10-C-3263, U.S. Dist. Court (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2011).
     When there was a pending motion to dismiss a lawsuit against federal agents on the basis of qualified immunity, the plaintiff was not entitled to pursue discovery to find the real names and locations of currently unknown "John Doe" defendants, as such immunity also provides protection against the burden of pretrial discovery. The lawsuit concerned alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, due process violations, excessive use of force, and improper disclosure of tax information. Halliday Spjute, #1:07-CV-00620, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 85292 (E.D. Cal.).
     A mother sued a city and three city police officers for causing the death of her schizophrenic and previously suicidal son after she summoned them to her home with a 911 call. The son was then barricaded in his bedroom, refusing to leave. The officers forced opened the bedroom door and fired Tasers at him, and he was pronounced dead the next day. The plaintiff claimed that inadequate training by the city in training officers to deal with mentally ill people caused his death. The city sought to bifurcate the plaintiff's claims, with the claims against the officers being tried first, for the purpose of avoiding the burden of discovery. The court ruled that, since the mother's claim was a very specific one of inadequate training on dealing with mentally ill persons, discovery on that issue would not constitute a "significant burden" on the city, so the city's motion for bifurcation, combined with a stay of discovery, was denied. Wilson v. City of Chicago, No. 07C-1682, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 60658 (N.D. Ill.).
     A prisoner was released from custody after serving more than 20 years for a rape and murder when DNA testing of semen found on the victim indicated he had been innocent of the crime. He then sued the city and several police officers, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. A number of officers, who had resisted complying with discovery requests on the basis of Fifth Amendment grounds, were allowed, by the trial court, to testify at the trial, and evidence of their prior silence was excluded. The trial judge compelled the officers to submit to discovery and to undergo depositions before testifying. A federal appeals court found no abuse of discretion by the trial judge, and rejected the plaintiff's appeal of the verdict. The court noted that the plaintiff had not requested a continuance of the case based on the short period of time between the ordered compliance with discovery and the trial. Evans v. City of Chicago, No. 06-3401, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 1246 (7th Cir.).
     When a sheriff was no longer a defendant in a lawsuit over a deputy's shooting of a man allegedly fleeing following the commission of a misdemeanor, he was entitled to a protective order limiting any questioning of him to only events that occurred in his presence. Sulfridge v. Huff, No. 3:05-cv-188, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 67114 (E.D. Tenn.).
     In a class action lawsuit by arrestees claiming that they underwent unconstitutional strip searches, appeals court orders further proceedings as to whether plaintiffs could compel production of emails allegedly protected under attorney-client privilege. On remand, trial court is to determine whether the distribution of the emails to various persons within the sheriff's department resulted in a waiver of attorney-client privilege. Pritchard v. County of Erie, No. 06-2459, 473 F.3d 413 (2d Cir. 2007).[N/R]
     In arrestee's lawsuit claiming that a racially motivated stop of a car he had been riding in had resulted in his false arrest on drug charges, the plaintiff was not entitled to discovery of information about other members of the police department, aside from the two defendants, after his claims against the township had been dismissed. The plaintiff was therefore able to proceed with discovery of information concerning the defendant officers, including internal affairs files, but was barred from obtaining the requested information on other members of the police department or regarding the department's procedures and policies. Trial court also enters an order limiting the use of the discovery material to necessary disclosure to the plaintiff's lawyer and experts. Jones v. Derosa, Civil Action No. 00-3746, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80071 (D.N.J.).  [N/R]
     In a wrongful death lawsuit against a police investigator over his shooting and killing of a passenger in a vehicle he stopped, documents in his personnel file concerning his training and job performance were subject to discovery under New York state law. Pickering v. State of New York, 816 N.Y.S.2d 566 (A.D. 2nd Dept. 2006). [N/R]
     In a lawsuit brought by an Inmate pardoned by Governor, claiming that police officers conspired to frame him for a murder he was not involved in, the defendant officers' request to discover, from the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, the material provided to the Governor for consideration in connection with the pardon involved relevant material not protected by work product privilege. Court orders production of requested materials. Evans v. City of Chicago, No. 04C3570, 231 F.R.D. 302 (N.D. Ill. 2005). [N/R]
     Trial court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment to police officers in lawsuit over their shooting and killing of a suspect without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to discover whether video cameras in police vehicles at the scene of the incident recorded it, and what such videotapes might show. Ingle v. Yelton, No. 05-1556, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5779 (4th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]
     Plaintiff's failure, in federal civil rights lawsuit claiming he was prosecuted on the basis of an unconstitutional telephone harassment ordinance in violation of his First Amendment rights, to respond to discovery requests from the defendants justified the dismissal of the lawsuit as a sanction. Whatcott v. City of Provo, No. 2:01 CV 490, 231 F.R.D. 627 (D. Utah. 2005). [N/R]
     Excessive force lawsuit against city and police officers was properly dismissed on the basis of the continued failure of the plaintiffs' attorney to respond to discovery requests, have his clients appear for depositions, provide medical records or other documents explaining their purported injuries, or appear at conferences at the courthouse concerning the status of the case. Harrington v. City of Chicago, No. 04-4326, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 3 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Feb]
     Information concerning the frequency and location of random searches of N.Y. subway riders' backpacks and containers were protected against discovery by a law enforcement privilege in a lawsuit challenging the city's program to carry out such searches. Macwade v. Kelly, No. 05 CIV.6921, 230 F.R.D. 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     Information concerning whether or not the plaintiff was listed in a Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) maintained by the FBI was protected from disclosure under a privilege for law enforcement investigatory files. FBI's alleged surveillance of an Israeli native in the U.S. did not violate his First Amendment rights. FBI agents were also not liable for alleged harassment by his neighbors, who were under the mistaken belief that he was Iranian, and when there was no evidence that any FBI agent was aware of the plaintiff's particular political beliefs. Raz v. Mueller, No. CIV 02-5184, 389 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (W.D. Ark. 2005). [N/R]
     Dismissal of arrestee's lawsuit, claiming state troopers used excessive force while arresting him, was justified as a sanction for his failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery requests, which prejudiced the defendant troopers. Shelley v. Sprowls, No. 05-1909, 143 Fed. Appx. 459 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Plaintiff in a lawsuit claiming that a police officer was responsible for the homicide of a decedent was entitled to a mistrial and an award of attorneys' fees as a sanction for the defendant city's failure to disclose evidence concerning the case in the possession of the lead detective working on the murder investigation. Estate of Wallace v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 02-2929, 229 F.R.D. 163 (C.D. Cal. 2005). [N/R]
     City, county, and police department were not entitled to a stay of all discovery pending the resolution of motions for summary judgment on the basis for qualified immunity. Limited discovery, which is not overly broad, may be necessary even in relationship to qualified immunity issues, and the court notes that qualified immunity defenses do not apply to municipal liability claims, so that some materials not discoverable in relationship to claims against individual officers may be discoverable from the municipal defendants. Rome v. Romero, No. 03-MK-1902, 225 F.R.D. 640 (D. Colo. 2004). [N/R]
     Trial court properly set aside jury's award of $1 in nominal damages to a man bit twice by a police dog during an attempt to apprehend him. His persistent insistence during discovery that he was not the suspect that the police were seeking at the time, until he admitted during cross-examination at trial that he was, constituted perjury for which the denial of the jury's award was a proper sanction. Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, No. 03-2195, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 4969 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR May]
     Plaintiff in federal civil rights lawsuit against officers and city claiming summons was improperly issued to him in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights and because of racial animus was not entitled to disclosure of a defendant officer's home address for the purpose of asking whether neighbors had overheard officer make racist remarks. Trial court also rejects plaintiff's arguments that plaintiff was entitled to disclosure of officer's home address for the purpose of aiding his investigation of her ability to pay punitive damages. The officer's interests in privacy and safety outweighed the plaintiff's "extremely weak" interest in obtaining her home address, the court rules. Collens v. City of New York, 222 F.R.D. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Plaintiffs who sued a municipality for alleged civil rights violations in connection with at least two instances of trespass upon their premises were not entitled to pursue their lawsuit if they persisted in asserting their privilege against self-incrimination in response to discovery questions concerning the use and occupancy of the premises and whether they or others lived there. While they had a constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment not to answer such questions, the failure to provide such information would prevent the municipality from properly defending itself in the lawsuit, and the privilege against self-incrimination, which is intended to be used solely as a "shield" cannot be used as a "sword to harass a defendant and to effectively thwart any attempt" by a defendant at a pretrial discovery proceeding to obtain information relevant to the cause of action alleged and possible defenses to it. Nasca v. Town of Brookhaven, 781 N.Y.S.2d 137 (A.D. 2nd Dept. 2004). [N/R]
     Motorist suing for damages resulting from collision with police vehicle was entitled to discovery of the data collected by the defendants' experts when the highway was closed off to investigate the accident, including factual findings, calculations, measurements, diagrams, and related factual material. The fact that some of these materials may have been prepared for the purposes of litigation did not alter the result when the plaintiff could not gather the same information without "undue hardship" or by any other means. Russell v. City of Buffalo, 772 N.Y.S.2d 160 (A.D. 4th Dept. 2004). [N/R]
     Plaintiff pursuing claim for death of arrestee in a paddy wagon on the way to a hospital was not entitled to conduct depositions of police officers who conducted an investigation of the incident or to request discovery of documents produced by the police department in the course of its investigation. "Law enforcement investigatory privilege" protected this material from discovery, and "deliberative process privilege" also protected the documents generated in the course of the investigation. Additionally, the trial court held that a stay of discovery, for a limited time, was a reasonable way to protect the defendant officers, accused of excessive force, in terms of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, should they be criminally indicted as a result of a pending investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice. Jones v. City of Indianapolis, 216 F.R.D. 440 (S.D. Ind. 2003). [N/R]
     Officers who arrested a man after a 911 call reported shots fired are not required to submit voice exemplars on the basis of arrestee's claim that the officers made the call themselves to furnish an excuse to stop his vehicle and conduct a search, in the absence of any "substantial and credible evidence of wrongdoing by the police tending to exculpate the defendant." The court expressed its belief that "compelling the police to submit to procedures which inherently question their integrity should not be undertaken lightly and to do so based upon mere bald allegations or suppositions would undermine the public trust in the police and seriously undermine police morale." The case is evidently one of first impression (not previously decided) by a New York court as to whether voice exemplars are discoverable under these circumstances. The context of the decision is discovery in a criminal prosecution, not a civil lawsuit. People v. Blankymsee, 764 N.Y.S.2d 331 (Sup. 2003). [N/R]
     Sheriff was entitled to a judicial order quashing a portion of a discovery order compelling the production of the home addresses and photographs of ten active law enforcement officers in a civil lawsuit alleging false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and battery. Such information was exempt from disclosure under state public records statute, and the plaintiff failed to show exceptional necessity or unusual circumstances justifying the production of the documents. Henderson v. Perez, 833 So. 2d 390 (Fla. App. 2d Dist. 2003). [N/R]
     Arrestee's lawsuit against police officer for malicious prosecution was properly dismissed after discovery revealed that he was proceeding under a false name, under federal rule governing sanctions for discovery violations and the court's "inherent authority" to punish "flagrant contempt" of court. Dotson v. Bravo, #01-3494, 321 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
     Trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sanction of dismissal of his lawsuit accusing police officers of assaulting him on a plaintiff whose attorney failed to meet three separate deadlines to file his responses to interrogatories posed by the defendants. Appeals court noted that the defendant city's attorneys were "equally careless and negligent in complying with their discovery obligations," but they and the city were not sanctioned. In cases where an attorney, rather than a litigant, is "clearly at fault" for failing to comply with discovery deadlines, the appeals court suggested, a judge should "give serious consideration" to punishing the "lawyer through a fine, an award of costs and attorneys' fees to opposing counsel" (to be paid by the plaintiff's lawyer, not the plaintiff), a citation for contempt, and professional discipline, "rather than punishing the plaintiff through dismissal of the suit." Rice v. City of Chicago, #02-1604, 333 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Insurance claims adjuster's interviews of officers after incident where they allegedly tackled an individual and injured his shoulder following a disturbance in a parking lot were not protected by attorney-client privilege or work product privilege from discovery in litigation federal civil rights lawsuit because they were not conducted in anticipation of litigation. Claims adjuster's interviews of witnesses to the incident, however, were protected under the work product privilege because they were conducted in anticipation of litigation. Garcia v. City of El Centro, 214 F.R.D. 587 (S.D. Cal. 2003). [N/R]
     Defendant in cocaine possession case did not present a plausible factual basis for his claim of police misconduct sufficient to provide good cause for discovery of confidential police personnel files of the officers involved in his arrest. Warrick v. Superior Court, No. B160462, 132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 810 (Cal. App. 2003). [N/R]
     Police commissioner should not be required to give a deposition in a lawsuit claiming that county police officers engaged in sexual abuse when he had no personal knowledge of the incident involved, and there were other, lower ranking officials who could provide evidence on the county's policies and procedures for addressing alleged sexual abuse by officers. Murray v. County of Suffolk, 212 F.R.D. 108 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     Federal government was liable for attorneys' fees of journalist requesting FBI documents relating to deceased civil rights activist when the government sought a protective order, failing to first consult with the requester and make a good faith attempt to resolve the discovery dispute before seeking intervention by the court. Campbell v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 231 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002). [N/R]
     Trial court should not have converted a motion to dismiss a federal civil rights lawsuit over the plaintiff's two arrests under warrants meant for his brother to a motion for summary judgment without first allowing the plaintiff notice and a "reasonable opportunity" to conduct discovery. Carter v. Baltimore County, Md., #01-2242, 39 Fed. Appx. 930 (4th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Plaintiff's failure to comply with an order to sign a release to authorize the unsealing of certain records relating to the events giving rise to his lawsuit, for purposes of discovery, was sufficient to support the dismissal of his federal civil rights claim when he was expressly warned that this was a possible sanction for his failure to comply. Fulton v. Mangini, 206 F.R.D. 76 (W.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
     Dismissal of arrestee's federal civil rights wrongful arrest action against sheriff's department and deputies because of his failure to comply with discovery, including failure to appear at a scheduled deposition was within the trial court's discretion. Voit v. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, #01-5887, 31 Fed. Appx. 189 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Personnel records of police officers who would offer expert opinions in lawsuit on the alleged excessive use of force were not privileged from discovery under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act, W.Va. Code 29B-1-1 et seq. or under state police regulations concerning the confidentiality of personnel files. The records also were not privileged as law enforcement investigatory materials or as official information. Rollins v. Barlow, 188 F. Supp. 2d 660 (S.D. W. Va. 2002). [N/R]
     Plaintiff in lawsuit against city and unnamed police officers for injuries suffered when officers allegedly drove a police vehicle into her was not entitled to an extension of time to conduct further discovery when she provided no explanation for why she failed to conduct any discovery during a previous 60-day extension period. Another extension of the discovery period would expose individual officers unfairly to further inquiries aimed at justifying litigation against them almost four years after the incident in question. Lockwood v. City of Philadelphia, 205 F.R.D. 448 (E.D. Pa. 2002). [N/R]
     It was not an abuse of discretion for a trial court to dismiss a federal civil rights lawsuit against a city with prejudice based on plaintiff's failure to comply in a timely manner with orders for discovery. Serra-Lugo v. Consortium-Las Marias, #01-1441, 271 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2001). [N/R]
      Records of internal investigations of police officers against whom civil or criminal complaints had been filed were shielded from a freedom of information act request under West Virginia state law based on an "invasion of privacy" exemption applicable to the records. Manns v. City of Charleston Police Department, No. 28743, 550 S.E.2d 598 (W. Va. 2001). [2002 LR Mar]
     Plaintiff's use of a false name in filing his federal civil rights lawsuit and failure to disclose his true name and identity throughout the litigation obstructed the discovery process, including the defendants' discovery of his arrest history, and resulted in the forfeiture of his right to pursue his claims. Dotson v. Bravo, #00-C-7352, 202 F.R.D. 559 (N.D. Ill. 2001). [N/R]
     347:170 Newspaper was entitled to access to most discovery documents in settled lawsuit claiming that police officer committed sexual crime against a woman and police department had a policy of inadequate training, supervision and discipline of officers engaged in repeated acts of misconduct; public interest in preventing police misconduct outweighed any benefit of keeping the documents confidential, as long as personal information such as social security numbers, addresses, and medical records were excluded. Doe v. Chicago Police Officer E. Marsalis, 202 F.R.D. 233 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
     342:88 Trial court acted within its discretion in dismissing federal civil rights lawsuit against city based on plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery requests; plaintiff did not answer 13 written interrogatories and instead stated that he might inform the public "what a pack of morally degenerate corrupt fascists Defendants are" by putting the information on the internet. Lindstedt v. City of Granby, No. 99-2624, 238 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2000).
     330:93 Couple who were named by sheriff's department personnel as possible suspects in the death of the woman's two-year-old son were not entitled to discovery, in their civil suit against sheriff, of entire investigative file of ongoing homicide investigation, so long as the need for confidentiality outweighed the benefits of disclosure. Orange, County of, v. Superior Court of Orange County (Wu), 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 261 (Cal. App. 2000).
     331:107 Plaintiff in false arrest/excessive force case could not discover personal information about officers such as their residence address, social security numbers, past hospitalizations, and children, as these were not relevant to the case; information concerning past complaints against them, however, was discoverable. Scaife v. Boenne, 191 F.R.D. 590 (N.D. Ind. 2000).
     329:73 New York trial judge properly exercised discretion in denying arrestee's motion to compel production of arresting officer's employment records and district attorney's entire file on the arrest in arrestee's lawsuit claiming assault by officer. Tsachalis v. City of Mount Vernon, 690 N.Y.S.2d 746 (A.D.N.Y. 1999).
     330:90 City was entitled to summary judgment on arrestee's excessive force inadequate training/discipline claims when he stated, in response to discovery request, that he did not intend to rely on prior incidents of the alleged use of excessive force; further discovery was not warranted before ruling on city's motion for summary judgment when plaintiff did not explain why he had not sought such information before. Nicholson v. Doe, 186 F.R.D. 134 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
     {N/R} A California law enforcement agency may destroy peace officer internal investigation files after a five-year retention period and peace officer personnel records five years after the officer has terminated employment when the destruction is solely a matter of administrative routine and no other factors are present that would establish "bad faith." Cal. Atty. Gen. Opin. #99-1111, 00 C.D.O.S. 3563 (5-2-2000).
     322:151 Plaintiff in civil rights lawsuit concerning his arrest did not impliedly waive therapist-patient privilege by including a claim for emotional distress; medical records during plaintiff's two-year confinement in mental health center after incident not discoverable. Hucko v. City of Oak Forest, 185 F.R.D. 526 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
     Editor's Note: Other cases on this issue include: Vanderbilt v. Town of Chilmark, 174 F.R.D. 225 (D. Mass. 1997) (mere assertion of emotional damage claim does not constitute a waiver of therapist-patient privilege); and three cases in which an implied waiver was found, Fox v. The Gates Corp., 179 F.R.D. 303 (D. Col. 1998), Vasconcells v. Cybex, 962 F.Supp. 701 (D. Md. 1997), and Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co., 170 F.R.D. 127 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
     321:131 Monetary sanctions awarded against plaintiff's lawyer in federal civil rights lawsuit were not immediately appealable; any appeal must wait until the final resolution of the underlying case. Cunningham v. Hamilton County, Ohio, #98-727, 119 S.Ct. 1915 (1999).
     319:107 Plaintiffs in federal civil rights case were not entitled to the reopening of their dismissed claims on the basis of defendants' alleged withholding of psychological report concerning one officer when plaintiffs already had independent knowledge of a previous allegation of excessive force by the officer discussed in the report. Greiner v. City of Champlin, #97-2587, 97-2810, 152 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 1998).
     {N/R} State could not be required to produce documents that were not within the care, custody or control of the prosecutor in a criminal prosecution; prosecutor should not have been subjected to an order requiring the production of police department internal investigation files which he had not been shown to possess. Commonwealth v. Wanis, 690 N.E.2d 407 (Mass. 1998).
     317:77 Plaintiff in excessive force case could discover officer's employment history prior to joining the department to the extent relevant to issues concerning use of force; police department was not entitled to protective order against discovery of material on the hiring, training, supervision, and discipline of other officers. Bregman v. District of Columbia, 182 F.R.D. 352 (D.D.C. 1998).
     302:30 Plaintiffs entitled to in-chambers examination of information regarding confidential informant relied on in affidavit for search warrant when description of residence in affidavit was incorrect and no drugs were found in residence search. Holland v. O'Bryant, 958 F.Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 1997).
     304:59 No federal evidentiary privilege barred disclosure of incident reports in civil rights lawsuit claiming that officers "purposefully turned a blind eye" to complaints of harassment; officers' disciplinary files also might contain material relevant to case, but court would first examine files itself before ruling on whether they could be disclosed. Curtis v. McHenry, 172 F.R.D. 162 (W.D. Pa. 1997).
     306:91 Network's videotape of deputy making a traffic stop of one of its employees was relevant to other motorist's lawsuit claiming deputy had a pattern of conducting wrongful vehicle stops; court orders production of videotape in lawsuit over network's objection of journalistic privilege. Gonzales v. Pierce, 175 F.R.D. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
     311:172 Massachusetts high court rules that statements of witnesses to crime and arrest, even when gathered in the course of internal affairs investigation, are ordinarily subject to release to defendants in criminal prosecution. Commonwealth v. Wanis, 690 N.E.2d 407 (Mass. 1998).
     311:173 Release of personnel files of undercover officers to criminal defense counsel, which was done without court order, violated their constitutionally protected privacy rights, risking the lives of the officers and their families, in light of home addresses and other personal information contained in files; officers entitled to damages and injunctive relief. Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, #96-3853, (6th Cir. 1998), rehearing en banc denied, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 10896.
     289:12 Federal court rules that some documents concerning county's process of formulating policy on "hogtying" of suspects are discoverable in lawsuit brought by surviving family of arrestee who died after allegedly being hogtied Price v. County of San Diego, 165 F.R.D. 614 (SDCa 1996).
     297:139 Witness statements gathered by sheriff's office during internal investigation of whether deputy sheriff used excessive force during arrest were discoverable in federal civil rights lawsuit against deputy and were not protected by "work product" doctrine as documents prepared by or for a party in anticipation of litigation Collins v. Mullins, 170 F.R.D. 132 (WD Va 1996).
     297:139 Conclusion section of internal affairs report on incident alleging excessive use of force was not discoverable in federal civil rights lawsuit, since it responded to request by city attorneys for recommendation on how to respond to plaintiff's claim for damages and was therefore protected by "work product" doctrine Mick v. Brewer, 923 F.Supp. 181 (D.Kan 1996).
     279:45 Statements about shooting IRS agent made to investigator during internal investigation, which were summarized in memo also submitted to defense lawyer for U.S. government in wrongful death suit arising out of shooting were subject to discovery by plaintiff in suit; neither "joint defense" doctrine or "work product" privilege applied Griffith v. Davis, 161 F.R.D. 687 (CD Cal 1995).
     280:61 Internal affairs documents regarding specific incident which was subject of lawsuit ruled discoverable by federal trial court in arrestee's excessive force suit; court issues protective order, however, limiting access to materials to plaintiff and his attorney Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D.Cal 1995).
     283:107 Plaintiff in excessive force case was not entitled to disclosure of items not shown to be part of an IAD file presented for inspection; further, plaintiff had not shown that items sought were relevant and material to his lawsuit Rodriguez v. New York, City of, 635 N.Y.S.2d 590 (A.D. 1995).
     {N/R} Arrestee/plaintiff failed to show that he was prejudiced by trial judge's refusal to allow him more time to conduct discovery, even though this resulted in his being unable to depose deputy sheriffs Martel v. County of Los Angeles, 56 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 1995).
     266:30 "Conclusory allegations" of negligent training and supervision were insufficient to support breaching confidentiality of Internal Affairs Division (IAD). files Flores v. City of New York, 615 N.Y.S.2d 400 (A.D. 1994).
     269:74 Plaintiff in suit claiming he was arrested without probable cause was not entitled to discovery concerning investigation officers undertook after his arrest, since the relevant question was whether the officers had probable cause at the time of arrest. Smith v. Dowson, 158 F.R.D. 138 (D.Minn. 1994).
     {N/R} California state statute protecting from discovery police personnel records for officers not directly involved in incident applied to records of retired officer who testified as defense expert Davis. v. City of Sacramento, 29 Cal.Rptr. 232 (Cal App. 1994).
     Police department internal affairs investigation into shooting by officer was subject to discovery by plaintiff in federal civil rights lawsuit; interviews of officers involved in incident must be disclosed to the extent that they contain "factual" accounts of incident at issue. Svaigsen v. City of New York, 609 N.Y.S.2d 894 (A.D. 1994).
     City ordered to release police reports to plaintiff in civil lawsuit when no particular claim of privilege was made and crime investigation, while technically open, was not really active. Glover, Estate of v. City of New York, 599 N.Y.S.2d 584 (A.D. 1993).
     Iowa Supreme Court holds that police department internal investigation files were protected against disclosure in civil rights lawsuit by attorney "work product" privilege and portions of files could only be disclosed if plaintiff could first demonstrate that independent attempts to interview or depose witnesses were unsuccessful Shook v. City of Davenport, 497 N.W.2d 883 (Iowa 1993).
     Personnel files and internal affairs' histories of officers who were present during an incident in which excessive force was allegedly used were relevant to determine, among other things, the credibility of the officers. Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227 (S.D. Cal. 1993). {N/R}
     Police dept. documents and files reflecting events that occurred after the allegations in the complaint were discoverable because they might be relevant to show the intent of the individual officers involved. Montalvo v. Hutchinson, 837 F.Supp. 576 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). {N/R}
     California appeals court holds that state law provides conditional privilege to discovery of officer's home address and other information contained in personnel file, even if also available outside the file Hackett v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 405 (Cal App. 1993).
     Internal affairs files on investigation of incident, which went beyond factual matters already disclosed, was privileged, but judge had to examine personnel files of officers not involved in lawsuit and arbitration record concerning suspension of officer to determine whether plaintiff could obtain them through discovery Olstoin v. Waterford Township Police Department, 471 N.W.2d 666 (Mich App. 1991).
     City held liable for $24 million to estate of police officer shot by another officer during drug raid; city's defenses were stricken by court as a sanction for failure to comply with discovery orders; city also ordered to pay $93,250 in sanctions for discovery noncompliance. Dallas, City of, v. Cox, 793 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. App. 1990).
     Plaintiff's inadequate response to interrogatories about expert's expected testimony led to court order barring expert from testifying in civil rights case involving fatal shooting Jefferson v. Davis, 131 F.R.D. 522 (N.D.Ill. 1990).
     Alaska Supreme Court holds that police officers' personnel records and internal investigation files are discoverable in civil rights lawsuit Jones v. Jennings, 788 P.2d 732 (Alaska 1990).
     Alleged victim of strip search in public place was entitled to conduct deposition of officer who actually conducted search, but not of officer not directly involved Verna v. Village of Spring Valley, 548 N.Y.S.2d 315 (A.D. 1989).
     California Supreme Court holds that arresting officers' personnel records are discoverable on basis of affidavit not based on personal knowledge. City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court, 260 Cal.Rptr. 520 (Cal 1989).
     Civil rights plaintiff alleging excessive force was entitled to documents concerning his arrest, past incidents involving officers and psychiatric treatment of officers Mueller v. Walker, 124 F.R.D. 654 (D.Or 1989).
     Statements made by officers to investigating team cannot all be shielded from production by attorney-client privilege Vela v. Superior Court, 255 Cal.Rptr. 921 (Cal App. 1989).
     Officers' alleged willful failure to comply with discovery order results in striking their defenses and barring them from offering evidence on liability Conway v. Dunbar, 121 F.R.D. 211 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
     Man arrested for loitering and prostitution allowed to discover records of past activities of certain officers Johnson v. McTigue, 122 F.R.D. 9 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), reported in 1988
     Mere conclusory declaration that officer used excessive force to arrest defendant did not entitle criminal defendant to discovery of officer's personnel records City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court, 248 Cal.Rptr. 364 (Cal App. 1988).
     Failure to comply with discovery rules results in default judgment against sheriff Coleman v. Ballentine, 101 F.R.D. 541 (N.D.Ill. 1984).
     City dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery; "unknown" officer not dismissed Fulgham v. An Unknown Police Officer, 480 So.2d 417 (La App. 1985).
     Federal court favors disclosure of police documents, including training manuals, and evaluations and opinions in internal investigations; new procedural requirements placed on police in challenging disclosure. Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D.Cal 1987).
     Police defendants in civil rights lawsuit could not get discovery of files of private investigator hired to assist plaintiff in defense of criminal case. Clark v. City of Munster, 115 F.R.D. 609 (N.D.Ind 1987).
     Personnel files of officers named as defendants not subject to discovery, although relevant portions of internal investigation reports were. Segura v. City of Reno, 116 F.R.D. 42 (D. Nev 1987).
     Internal affairs records not absolutely privileged, subject to Discovery in civil lawsuits, Ohio Supreme Court rules Henneman v. City of Toledo, 35 Ohio St 3d 241, 520 NE 207 (1988).
     " See also: Procedural: Police Records/Reports