The First Response to the Request for Information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

JOSEPH KELLER, individually and as
Personal Representative of the
Estate of Deontae Keller, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

      v.

CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal
corporation, THE PORTLAND POLICE,
OFFICER TERRY KRUGER, an individual,
and OFFICER GARY BECK, an individual,

Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV 98-263-ST

 

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS

   Defendants respond to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents as follows:

PRELIMINARY

    Defendants do not acknowledge or adhere to plaintiff s suggested definitions and instructions. Defendants' responses are made pursuant to and in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   REQUEST NO. l: All documentation of internal affairs, departmental, or supervisory investigations or other investigations or evaluations not specifically delineated, done on either Officer Terry Kruger or Gary Beck.

   RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Objection. As worded, plaintiff's request encompasses documents protected by the attorney-client, work product, the official information privilege and governmental privileges. Further, plaintiff's request is vague, overbroad, and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited in scope or time. Without waiving these objections, Officer Term Kruger has not been the subject of any internal affairs investigations. Without waking these objections, Officer Gaper Boek has been the subject of one internal affairs investigation but the facts involved a dog bite of a running suspect and are so different from the allegations in plaintiffs Complaint as to not be relevant and/or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

    REQUEST NO 2: All documentation of mental fitness evaluations done on either Terry Kruger or Galy Beck.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 2: Objection. The information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's request also seeks privileged information. Confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and the psychotherapist's patient are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and such privilege also extends to confidential communications made to a licensed social worker and any notes taken during counseling sessions. See Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 US 1 (1996).

    REQUEST NO. 3: All documentation of any citizen complaints against Terry Kruger or Gary Beck.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 3: Objection. As worded, plaintiff's request encompasses documents protected by the attorney-client, work product, official information privilege and/or governmental privileges. Further, plaintiff's request is vague and ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited in scope or time. Without waiving these objections, Officer Terry Kruger has not been the subject of any internal affairs investigation. Without waiving these objections, Officer Gary Bock has been the subject of one internal affairs investigation but the facts involved a dog bite of a running suspect and are so different from the allegations in plaintiffs complaint as to not be relevant nor lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

   REQUEST NO. 4: All documentation of any awards, commendations or other achievement citations received by Terry Kruger or Gary Beck.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: To the extent such documents exist, they will be produced.

    REQUEST NO. 5: A complete copy of the personnel file for both Terry Kruger and Gary Beck.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: Objection. Plaintiffs request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The information sought is also protected from disclosure under the official information privilege. Further, disclosure of the requested documents would constitute an invasion of privacy. Finally, disclosure of such files may subject the City to liability under the recent decision in Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998).

    REQUEST NO. 6: A list of all officers on location at the site of the police shooting named in the complaint which is the subject of this lawsuit.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: At the time of the shooting, the following officers were present when Officer Kruger shot at plaintiff's decedent:
       1. Officer Kruger;
        2. Officer Leer
        3. Officer Yee; and
        4. Officer Reyna.
In addition, if plaintiff does not have a copy of the police reports related to the shooting, defendants are producing a copy of the police reports relating to the shooting (1OOX93-101126).

   REQUEST NO. 7: Complete personnel files of all other officers on location at the site of the police shooting which is the subject of this lawsuit, including but not limited to psychological evaluations, internal affairs investigations, departmental investigations, supervisory investigations or evaluations and any other investigations or evaluations not specifically delineated in this request.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: Objection Plaintiff's request for personnel files and internal affairs investigations is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition? see responses to request nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.

    REQUEST NO. 8: All documentation in reference to any of the officers located at the site of the police shooting which is the subject of this lawsuit being involved in use of their service revolvers in the line of duty.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: Objection. As worded, plaintiff's request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request also encompasses documents protected by the attorney-client, work product and/or official information privilege. In addition, plaintiff's request is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited in scope or time.

    REQUEST NO. 9: All documents relating specifically to Terry Kruger's use of his service revolver in the line of duty.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: Limited objection. As worded, plaintiff's request encompasses documents protected by the attorney-client, work product and/or governmental privileges. In addition, plaintiff's request is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited in scope or time. Terry Kruger's service revolver is a 9mm Glock. Defendant will produce a Weapons Qualification Report which documents Officer Kruger's scores from the firing range using that weapon prior to February 28, 1996 if that information can still be retrieved. Otherwise, defendant City does not track the requested information. In order to provide it defendant would have to search through information contained in approximately 12 filing cabinet drawers and 10 archive boxes. The City does not have the manpower or resources to conduct such a search and objects to going to this significant effort. However, as stated in the response to plaintiff's interrogatory no. 2, Officer Kruger believes this is the only time he has fired his sidearm in the course of duty.

    REQUEST NO. 10: All documentation of any incident other than those listed in request number 9 in which Terry Kruger drew his weapon on a private citizen.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: Objection. As worded, plaintiffs request encompasses documents protected by the attorney-client, work product and/or governmental privileges. Further, such information does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, defendants do not track the requested information. Generally, there is no requirement to document such occurrences. To the extent there is some documentation, it would require searching each and every police report filed by City of Portland police officers to find police reports for incidents to which Terry Kruger responded. Each of those police reports would then have to be reviewed for any mention of Officer Kruger having drawn his weapon which is not information routinely recorded by officers. Because the City does not have the manpower or resources to conduct such a search, defendants further object to this request as unduly burdensome and expensive.

    REQUEST NO. 11: All documentation relating to Terry Kruger being accused whether formally or informally in the use of excessive force

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: Objection. The information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As worded, plaintiff's request encompasses documents protected by the attorney-client, work product and/or official information privilege. In addition, plaintiff's request is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited in time or scope. Further, plaintiffs request is vague in that defendant does not have "informal" complaints and that term holds no meaning for defendant. However, as indicated in response to interrogatory no. 4 and request for production nos. 1 and 3, Officer Kruger has not been the subject of an internal affairs investigation. The only other tort claim notice regarding excessive force against Officer Kruger, is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it was an incident which occurred on January 14, 1998 and received by the City on April 21, 1998.

    REQUEST NO. 12: All documentation relating to the number of accusations made against the Portland Police for the use of excessive force in the past ten years.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: Objection. Plaintiff's request does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, as worded, plaintiff's request also encompasses documents protected by the attorney-client, work product and/or governmental privileges. In addition, plaintiff's request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. If plaintiff can explain how such information could lead of the discovery of admissible evidence, defendants will reconsider their response.

    REQUEST NO 13: All documentation of Portland Police officer involvement in the shooting of a private citizen for the past ten years, including but not limited to a description of the shooter and the victim

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: Objection. Plaintiff's request does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, as worded, plaintiffs request also encompasses documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product and/or governmental privileges. Further, plaintiffs request is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it seeks documents not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant City does not track the requested information. In order to provide it defendant would have to search through information contained in approximately 12 filing cabinet drawers and 10 archive boxes. The City does not have the manpower or resources to conduct such a search and objects to going to this significant effort without an indication that the product will be of value in the prosecution of this case. If plaintiff can explain how such information could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, defendants will reconsider their response.

   REQUEST NO. 14: All documentation relating to the ethnic make-up of the Portland Police Department.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: Objection. Plaintiffs request does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, as worded, plaintiffs request also encompasses documents protected by the attorney-client, work product and/or governmental privileges. Further, plaintiffs request is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it is not limited in time or scope. If plaintiff can explain how such information could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, defendants will reconsider their response.

    REQUEST NO 15: All documentation of a citizen shooting at or injuring a Portland Police Officer for the past ten years, including but not limited to a description of the shooter and the victim.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: Objection. Plaintiffs request does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, as worded, plaintiff's request also encompasses documents protected by the attorney-client, work product and/or governmental privileges. Further, plaintiffs request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. If plaintiff can explain how such information could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, defendants will reconsider their response.

    REQUEST NO 16 All documentation of crime statistics for the City of Portland for the past ten years including but not limited to a statistical breakdown by crime and location.

    RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: Objection. Plaintiff's request does not appear  reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, as worded, plaintiff's request also encompasses documents protected by the attorney-client, work product and/or governmental privileges. In addition, plaintiff's request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. If plaintiff can explain how such information could lead at the discovery of admissible evidence. defendants will reconsider their response

wpe2.gif (4038 bytes)

Now, Hear More From The Voice Of Joe (Bean) Keller...