Gonzalez-Chavez v. City of Bakersfield et al

Filing 28

ORDER After Informal Telephonic Conference re: Discovery Dispute 27 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/14/2014. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIGUEL A. GONZALEZ-CHAVEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.:1: 12-CV-02053 JLT
ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC
CONFERENCE RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
(Doc. 27)

16
17

On May 14, 2014, the Court held an informal telephonic conference at counsels’ request to

18

address an ongoing discovery dispute. (Doc. 27) At this conference some issues were resolved as

19

follows:

20

1.

The Court will conduct an in camera review of all records of discipline of Officer

21

Messick related to the use of excessive force. The Court ORDERS counsel for Defendants to

22

provide the Court the records or to set up a time with the Court for a representative of the City of

23

Bakersfield to produce the documents to the Court directly. The records SHALL be produced no

24

later than May 30, 2014, regardless of the method;

25

2.

Counsel for Defendants is ORDERED to provide a certification to Plaintiff’s counsel

26

authenticating the records produced already related to the training of the involved officers. The

27

certification SHALL also admit the date each of the officers completed his/her POST certified basic

28

training. If after receiving this certification, Plaintiff’s counsel feels that additional deposition of the
1

1

person most knowledgeable is warranted, she SHALL meet and confer with opposing counsel and, if

2

no agreement can be reached, to seek a further informal conference with counsel and the Court;

3

3.

Plaintiff decided to withdraw the request that the person most knowledgeable produce

4

records related to any download or upload of the data from the taser Officer Barthelmes’ allegedly

5

used during the incident at issue. This does not preclude Defendants from providing information

6

explaining the apparent inconsistency between the testimony of the person most knowledgeable that

7

data from the taser does not exist and Officer Barthelmes’ deposition testimony stating, seemingly,

8

that he personally uploaded the data into “training” from his taser;

9

4.

There was no compromise reached as to the production of use of force documents by

10

or about Officers Messick and Barthlemes. Therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel may file a motion to

11

compel discovery which complies with Local Rule 251(c) and the scheduling order.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 14, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2