Briggs v. Yi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JOSHUA D. BRIGGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OREAN YI, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Before the Court at Docket 49 is Plaintiff Joshua Briggs’ Motion to Compel
Production of Documents. Defendants Orean Yi and the Municipality of Anchorage
filed a response in opposition at Docket 54, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the
motion at Docket 55, and Defendants filed a supplemental response in opposition
at Docket 56. In an order filed at Docket 68, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to
strike the supplemental response.
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond to Request for
Production Nos. 2, 3, and 5, each of which is addressed in this order.
1. Request for Production No. 2.
Plaintiff asked that the Municipality produce:
All documents and communications that mention or discuss Joshua
Briggs, including but not limited to all documents and communications
within the Anchorage Police Department, within the Municipal
Prosecutor’s office, communications between the Anchorage Police
Department and Municipal Prosecutor’s office, and communications
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 70 Filed 07/27/23 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.
Order re Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Page 2 of 4
between any other Municipal departments, agencies, subdivisions, and
offices.
Defendants produced six emails and provided a privilege log that lists five
additional emails withheld under claims of attorney-client and attorney work-
product privilege. A review of the privilege log indicates that these communications
by municipal prosecutors and their staff about the criminal case are protected
work-product and that protection was not waived by the filing of the Declaration of
Monica Elkinton (Docket 23-1). Stating that a case was dismissed for the
convenience of the prosecutor does not constitute a waiver of the work-product
privilege with respect to interoffice communications among prosecutors and their
staff. Accordingly, the motion to compel production of RFP No. 2 is DENIED.
2. Request for Production No. 3
Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 3 is as follows:
Please produce all documents and communications, including but not
limited to police reports, court filings, memoranda, and summaries that
relate to each and every one of the 258 cases “referred by the police for
violations of AMC 8.30.120(A)(2)” [Docket 23-1, p. 4] since 2018.
As noted in Defendants’ supplemental response and this Court’s order on
the motion to strike, Defendants have produced a spreadsheet identifying each of
the 258 cases referred to in the Elkinton Declaration at Docket 56-1. And Plaintiff
has raised a viable Monell theory that the Municipality has made these arrests for
reasons other than to secure criminal convictions for these offenses. Therefore,
the Court finds that in addition to what Defendants have already produced in
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 70 Filed 07/27/23 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.
Order re Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Page 3 of 4
response to this request, Defendants shall provide all police reports for each of the
258 cases to Plaintiff. No additional discovery need be produced in response to
this request for production, as the court filings are publicly accessible to Plaintiff
and with regard to any other documents related to these cases, ordering such
documents to be produced would not be proportionate to the needs of the case.
Defendants may, at their option, redact the information that is privacy protected by
Rule 5.2, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before providing the police reports to
Plaintiff. Therefore, the motion to compel is GRANTED in part as to Request No.
3.
3. Request for Production No. 5
Plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 5 reads:
Please produce all documents and communications between the
Municipality of Anchorage, including the Anchorage Police Department
Employees Association that mention or discuss body worn cameras.
Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that the discussions regarding the use
of body cameras by the Anchorage Police Department are relevant to this case.
And if relevant, the Court does not find the discovery sought to be proportional to
the needs of the case, as any relevance the information might have in resolving
the issues in this case appears to be of quite a low magnitude, while the burden of
producing this information would outweigh any likely benefit it might have.
Therefore, the motion to compel as to Request for Production No. 5 is DENIED.
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 70 Filed 07/27/23 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.
Order re Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Page 4 of 4
In light of the foregoing, the motion at Docket 49 is GRANTED. Defendants
shall produce to Plaintiff the police reports identified in this order within 21 days of
the date of this order.
DATED this 27th day of July 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 70 Filed 07/27/23 Page 4 of 4