Gardner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO D. GARDNER, Case No. 20-cv-01148-JSW (AGT)

Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER

v. Re: Dkt. No. 53 ALEX REILLE, et al., Defendants.

The Court grants in part plaintiff’s request to compel. Defendants must produce docu- ments responsive to plaintiff’s RFPs 11–13, as limited by this order. RFPs 11–13 seek documents related to any complaints made against the defendants, related to any investigations involving the defendants, or evidencing sworn testimony given by the defendants. See Dkt. 53 at 2. All three requests have a ten-year time limit. See id. The requests seek relevant documents. Plaintiff’s excessive force and sexual-harassment claims arise under the Eighth Amendment and are subject to a “malicious and sadistic” stand- ard. See Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1049–50 (9th Cir. 2012). Evidence of “other acts” by the defendants may be admissible to satisfy this standard. See Henderson v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 05-CV-0234-VRW/WAF, 2007 WL 2938164, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007) (“The other acts evidence may be highly probative of the jury’s determination of whether Deputy Prado acted…