Anthony et al v. County of San Diego et al

1
25-cv-310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARIAN ANTHONY, JASMINE
JOHANESEN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-310-DMS-MMP
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE:
1. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
LIMITED SCOPE EARLY
DISCOVERY; and
2. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL RELEASE OF
UNREDACTED BODY-WORN
CAMERA FOOTAGE, VIDEO,
AND AUDIO
[ECF Nos. 37, 38]
Pending before the Court are pro se Plaintiffs’ (1) Motion for Limited Scope Early
Discovery and (2) Motion to Compel Release of Unredacted Body-Worn Camera Footage,
Video, and Audio. ECF Nos. 37, 38. Defendants filed oppositions, to which Plaintiffs
replied. ECF Nos. 48, 49, 50. The Court finds these motions suitable for determination on
the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procure 78(b) and
Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). ECF No. 42.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The Court previously set forth Plaintiffs’ allegations in the Complaint in its October
8, 2025 Order, which this Court incorporates by reference herein. ECF No. 34 at 2–4.
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 54 Filed 01/26/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 6

2
25-cv-310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In the pending motions, Plaintiff seeks to compel early discovery pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(d)(1) consisting of (1) “names, ranks, badge numbers,
and images of all officers involved in the August 5-16 2022 incidents” and (2) “release of
unredacted body-worn camera footage, video, and audio.” ECF Nos. 37 at 2, 38 at 2.
Plaintiffs also move to “compel the San Diego County District Attorney's office to
participate and release the affidavits or oath of affirmation supporting the sealed search
warrant [No: 2208090324-SDSD-KML-SW-1] issued by Judge Kathleen Lewis on August
9, 2022, at 3:29:48 AM including an order unsealing the warrant, under 28 U.S.C. § 1651
(All Writs Act) and the Court's inherent authority.” ECF No. 38 at 2. According to
Plaintiffs, the discovery sought is “essential to cure pleading deficiencies identified in the
Court’s October 8, 2025 Order, identify John Does defendants, and allow amendment [of
the Complaint] with specificity.” ECF No. 37 at 2. Plaintiffs assert “limited discovery of
officer lists” would enable “matching identity to footage, curing the Order’s specificity
issues without burden.” ECF No. 37 at 2–3. Plaintiffs also contend the request for a list is
narrow, therefore causing no prejudice or delay. Id. at 4.
Defendants oppose the motions on the ground Plaintiff has failed to show good cause
because “Plaintiff has not alleged a viable claim against any Doe necessitating early
discovery[,]” and Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad. ECF No. 49 at 2. Defendants contend
the Court’s October 8, 2025 Order already dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint on grounds
independent from the identity of the potential defendant; thus, Defendants maintain “[t]he
discovery sought would not . . . cure any of the deficiencies in the complaint articulated by
this Court.” ECF No. 49 at 3. In addition, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ motion to compel
body-worn camera footage is pre-mature, not based in good cause, and would be overly
broad and unduly burdensome on Defendants. ECF No. 48 at 2. Defendants argue “[e]arly
discovery would not aid Plaintiff in fixing the defects in his complaint and as such it is
unnecessary at this time.” Id. According to Defendants,“[e]ven if the requested discovery
were to be provided, it would not aid Plaintiff in amending his complaint to cure
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 54 Filed 01/26/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 6

3
25-cv-310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
deficiencies noted by this Court such as failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, or
non-compliance with CGCA [California Government Claims Act].” ECF No. 49 at 4.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
As both parties acknowledge, discovery is generally not permitted until after the
parties have conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In the context
of early discovery, courts apply a “good cause” standard to determine whether “the need
for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the
prejudice to the responding party.” Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063,
1066 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (citation modified). The Court weighs the following non-exclusive
factors 	in 	considering 	whether 	expedited 	discovery 	is 	appropriate: 	“(1) whether 	a
preliminary injunction is pending, (2) the breadth of the discovery requests, (3) the purpose
for requesting the expedited discovery, (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with
the requests, and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request was
made.” Id. at 1067 (citation modified).
When considering whether to permit early discovery of the identity of a Doe
defendant, the Court considers: (1) whether the plaintiff has identified the missing party
with “sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real person
or entity who could be sued in federal court[,]” (2) the steps a plaintiff has taken to identify
or locate the defendant, (3) whether the “plaintiff’s suit against the defendant could
withstand a motion to dismiss,” and (4) whether the requested discovery is likely to lead to
identifying information about the defendant that will permit service. Columbia Ins. Co. v.
Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578–80 (N.D. Cal. 1999). These factors should be
assessed in light of the Ninth Circuit’s admonition in Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637,
642 (9th Cir. 1980): “[S]ituations arise . . . where the identity of alleged defendants will
not be known prior to the filing of a complaint. In such circumstances, the plaintiff should
be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is
clear that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be
dismissed on other grounds. (citation omitted)” Id. (emphasis added).
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 54 Filed 01/26/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 6

4
25-cv-310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. 	ANALYSIS
The Court finds Plaintiffs have not established good cause at this time for early
discovery. As both parties acknowledge in their briefing, in its October 8, 2025 Order, the
Court already found Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not withstand a motion to dismiss. ECF
No. 34. In particular, the Court identified numerous deficiencies and ordered as follows:
- 	The Court granted the County’s motion to dismiss the eight claims alleged as
Plaintiffs’ “Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth” causes of action and dismissed the
claims with prejudice finding “any attempt to amend would be futile[.]” ECF No. 34
at 6.
- 	The Court found Plaintiff’s state law claims (First through Fifth and Ninth through
Eleventh causes of action) failed to allege compliance with the CGCA, and Plaintiffs
failed to allege facts establishing equitable estoppel, in particular “Plaintiffs
detrimentally relied on or were misled by the County’s actions.” ECF No. 34 at 8.
The Court therefore granted the County’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend to
alleged facts that establish equitable estoppel. Id.
- 	The Court also dismissed the Complaint under Rule 8(a)(2) with leave to amend
based on Plaintiffs’ (1) failure to specify relevant factual allegations for each cause
of action, (2) failure to differentiate the allegations and causes of action against all
Defendants, and (3) failure to differentiate multiple Plaintiffs and in particular
“which, if any, claim relates to [Plaintiff] Johanesen.” ECF No. 34 at 8–10.
- 	The Court also found Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, except for the Ralph Civil Rights
Act claim, were barred by the statute of limitations, and any exception to the statute
of limitations was insufficiently plead. ECF No. 34 at 11–12. Accordingly, the Court
granted the County’s motion with leave to amend on these grounds. Id.
- 	The Court found Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action, including assault, battery,
false arrest, false imprisonment, violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act claim,
violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act, negligence, and violations of §§ 1983, 1985,
and 1986, noting each cause of action incorporates all preceding paragraphs making
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 54 Filed 01/26/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 6

5
25-cv-310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“it difficult to discern the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims[,]” and “[m]any allegations were
vague, broad, and conclusory.” ECF No. 34 at 12–13.
- 	The Court also declined to rule on qualified immunity and whether the County was
erroneously sued through the SDSO given the pleading insufficiencies described
earlier in the Order. ECF No. 34 at 13.
- 	Finally, the Court dismissed the Doe Defendants without prejudice, explaining
“Plaintiffs do not allege how these unknown Defendants are connected to any
wrongdoing.” ECF No. 34 at 14.
Given the numerous pleading insufficiencies identified in the Court’s October 8, 2025
Order, the Court finds the factor of “whether [the] plaintiff’s suit against the defendant
could withstand a motion to dismiss” weighs very strongly against permitting early
discovery. Moreover, the Court agrees with Defendants that given the pervasive nature of
Plaintiffs’ pleading deficiencies—including but not limited to failure to differentiate
between Plaintiffs as well as failure to allege an applicable exception to the statute of
limitations—neither the “names, ranks, badge numbers, and images of all officers involved
in the August 5–16, 2022 incidents” nor the “unredacted body-worn camera footage”
sought in Plaintiffs’ motions, without more, would enable Plaintiffs to cure the deficiencies
identified. As the Court’s October 8, 2025 Order makes clear, the deficiencies are not
simply a case of identifying an unknown defendant by name. To the contrary, the Court
also dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint on other grounds. See Gillespie, 629 F.2d at 642. The
remaining factors regarding whether to permit early discovery of the identify of a Doe
Defendant also do not weigh in favor of permitting early discovery.
In addition, Plaintiffs’ vague, broad, and conclusory pleadings make the requested
discovery overly broad and not proportional to the needs of the case at this time. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). According to Plaintiffs, the body-worn camera footage they seek would
require “Hundreds of hours” to review. ECF No. 38 at 3. Further, as the Court observed in
the October 8, 2025 Order, “[a]lthough Anthony alleges the conduct spanned between
August 5 and 16, 2022, he does not allege specific acts against Defendants on any days
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 54 Filed 01/26/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 6

6
25-cv-310-DMS-MMP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
other than August 8 and 9, 2022.” ECF No. 34 at 2. Plaintiffs also do not allege specific
acts, dates, or even causes of action regarding Plaintiff Johanesen. See ECF No. 1-2 ¶ 2;
ECF No. 34 at 10. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for the “names, ranks, badge numbers, and
images of all officers involved in the August 5–16, 2022 incidents” is likewise overly
broad, burdensome, and not proportional at this time, without further factual allegations
and specificity.
Based on the record before this Court, Plaintiffs have not established the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, particularly at this early
stage when the Court has already granted a motion to dismiss the operative pleading, and
no amended pleading has yet been filed. Thus, the factors of “the breadth of the discovery
requests” as well as “the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests” weigh
against a finding of good cause. In addition, there is also no preliminary injunction pending.
The other factors of “the purpose for requesting the expedited discovery” and “how far in
advance of the typical discovery process the request was made” do not weigh strongly in
favor or against permitting early discovery and therefore are neutral.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
In sum, upon weighing the numerous factors identified above and considering the
standard for discovery under Rule 26, the Court finds Plaintiffs have not established good
cause to permit early discovery at this time. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without
prejudice Plaintiffs’ motions. ECF Nos. 37, 38. In the event Plaintiffs file an amended
pleading to cure the numerous deficiencies identified in the Court’s October 8, 2025 Order,
Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion seeking narrowly tailored and proportional early
discovery as necessary and appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2026 	_____________________________________________
HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00310-DMS-MMP Document 54 Filed 01/26/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 6