Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Valenta Duncan, proceeding pro se, filed this action in Sacramento County Superior Court on September 5, 2023, alleging he was arrested on an erroneous no-bail warrant issued by the Sacramento County Adult Probation Division despite never being on probation in Sacramento County and having been discharged from supervision in Alameda County two years prior. He was arrested by Alameda County deputies on January 20, 2023, transferred to Sacramento County Jail on January 23, and released on January 30, 2023, after a public defender identified the error. Duncan asserts a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a due process claim, and a state-law negligence claim, alleging he lost his job and suffered other harms. The Alameda County Sheriff's Department removed the case to federal court on March 20, 2025, and claims against it were dismissed on January 26, 2026. A scheduling order set a fact discovery deadline of October 16, 2026.
On September 21, 2026, the County of Sacramento moved to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 4 after plaintiff's initial and first amended responses were deemed incomplete. Plaintiff served second amended responses on September 18, 2026, but defendant maintained they remained deficient. On October 6, 2026, plaintiff moved to extend the discovery deadline, which defendant did not oppose, asserting good cause existed to subpoena plaintiff's employment history based on information first disclosed at plaintiff's deposition on October 9, 2026. The court vacated the October 28, 2026 hearing and decided the motions on the papers.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion to compel as to Special Interrogatory No. 1, which sought identification of specific County policies, procedures, or practices that caused the alleged constitutional violation. The court held that while plaintiff's mere allegation of a municipal policy sufficed to state a Monell claim, he must identify the specific policy in discovery to succeed. Plaintiff's second amended response, which referenced the PRCS procedure under AB 109 and the California Penal Code, did not identify a specific County policy that itself violated his rights but rather alleged negligent failure to follow procedures in his specific instance. The court ordered plaintiff to provide a further amended response either identifying a specific County policy or stating he is unaware of any such policy beyond what he already described.
The court also granted the motion to compel as to Special Interrogatory No. 4, which requested information regarding medications plaintiff took as a result of the incident. Plaintiff's response stated he "has taken some prescribed medications as a result of the incident" and referred defendant to "[a]ll relevant medical records." The court held this insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b), which requires each interrogatory to be answered "separately and fully in writing under oath," and does not permit a party to merely reference medical records in lieu of a full written response. The court cited Hicks v. Pleshchuk, 2025 WL 1663487 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2025), for the proposition that a party is not required to rummage through another's medical records. The court granted plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend the fact discovery deadline to December 15, 2026, finding good cause under Rule 16(b)(4) in light of defendant's non-opposition and the need to subpoena employment records based on new deposition testimony.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff asserting a Monell claim must identify a specific municipal policy, practice, or custom in discovery, not merely allege negligent failure to follow existing procedures in a single instance.
- Under Rule 33(b), a party may not satisfy an interrogatory by merely referencing medical records; each interrogatory must be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.
- The court will grant an unopposed motion to extend a discovery deadline upon a showing of good cause, particularly where new information disclosed at deposition necessitates additional discovery.
- Magistrate Judge Delaney resolved both discovery disputes without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), vacating the scheduled hearing.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the practical application of Monell pleading and discovery standards in the Eastern District of California, clarifying that a plaintiff cannot rely on vague references to state statutes or general procedures to satisfy a Rule 37 motion to compel. The ruling reinforces the requirement that interrogatory responses be self-contained and not incorporate by reference voluminous medical records, consistent with the court's prior decision in Hicks v. Pleshchuk. The extension of the discovery deadline to December 15, 2026, reflects the court's willingness to accommodate legitimate discovery needs arising from deposition testimony, even after the original deadline has passed, provided the moving party acts diligently and the opposing party does not object.