Derek Wardlaw v. Marino et al

Filing 57

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott Ordering Plaintiff to Identify Correct Defendant. Response due by 7/31/2017. (See order for details.) (jdo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:16-cv-3840-JAK-KES

Date: June 30, 2017

Title: DEREK WARDLAW v. MARINO, ET AL.
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE KAREN E. SCOTT, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jazmin Dorado
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
None Present

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

Ordering Plaintiff to Identify Correct
Defendant

On April 11, 2017, the Court served a modified version of Plaintiff’s proposed subpoena
on the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”). (Dkt. 46.) Plaintiff’s subpoena sought
“shift in-service” documents to assist Plaintiff in identifying the correct defendant named in
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) as “Marino,” as well video footage from three
separate dates and locations where the constitutional violations alleged in his TAC took place.
On June 8, 2017, Plaintiff informed the Court that he did not receive a response to the
subpoena. (Dkt. 51.) On June 14, 2017, the Court issued an order requiring that LASD respond to
the subpoena within twenty days. (Dkt. 52.)
On June 29, 2017, counsel for Defendant Chen filed a response to the subpoena on behalf
of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. (Dkt. 56.) The response indicated that 530 pages
of shift in-service documents, as well as Plaintiff’s “Movement Log” and “Inmate Total Movement
History,” were mailed to Plaintiff on June 29, 2017.1
On or before July 31, 2017, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to either (1) file a status report
identifying the correct defendant who was initially named in Plaintiff’s TAC as “Marino,” if he is
1

LASD also objected to one of Plaintiff’s video requests, and indicated that LASD did
not have video footage responsive to the other two requests.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:16-cv-3840-JAK-KES

Date: June 30, 2017
Page 2

able to identify that defendant through the subpoena responses, (2) show cause as to why he still
cannot identify the correct defendant, or (3) file a voluntary dismissal of Defendant “Marino”
without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall please attach a blank Notice of Dismissal form to this
Order.

Initials of Deputy Clerk JD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NUMBER

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Defendant(s).

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT
TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 41(a) or (c)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: (Check one)
G This action is dismissed by the Plaintiff(s) in its entirety.
G The Counterclaim brought by Claimant(s)
dismissed by Claimant(s) in its entirety.

is

G The Cross-Claim brought by Claimants(s)
dismissed by the Claimant(s) in its entirety.

is

G The Third-party Claim brought by Claimant(s)
dismissed by the Claimant(s) in its entirety.

is

G ONLY Defendant(s)
is/are dismissed from (check one) G Complaint, G Counterclaim, G Cross-claim, G Third-Party Claim
brought by

.

The dismissal is made pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 41(a) or (c).

Date

Signature of Attorney/Party

NOTE: F.R.Civ.P. 41(a): This notice may be filed at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for
summary judgment, whichever first occurs.
F.R.Civ.P. 41(c): Counterclaims, cross-claims & third-party claims may be dismissed before service of a responsive
pleading or prior to the beginning of trial.

CV-09 (03/10)

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a) or (c)