Brown v. Wimberley

Filing 43

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL CONFERENCE RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/8/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANNY BROWN,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

AUBREY WIMBERLY,
Defendants.

15

) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01812 JLT
)
) ORDER AFTER INFORMAL CONFERENCE RE:
) DISCOVERY DISPUTE
)
)
)
)
)

16
17

Mr. Brown claims he was fired in retaliation for complaining about unlawful activity at his job.

18

On August 8, 2016, the Court conducted an informal telephonic conference with counsel related to the

19

subpoenas issued by the defendant to related to past jobs at the City of Wasco and the California

20

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
At the informal conference, counsel agreed that the records would be produced to the Court to

21
22

conduct an in camera review.1 In the event the Court finds no records that bear on the emotional

23

distress damages, it will issue an order broadly outlining its findings and agreeing that the subpoenas

24

should be quashed. In the event the Court finds records that should be disclosed, it will issue an order

25

broadly describing the documents and allowing the plaintiff to offer objections.
In conducting the review, the Court will look for records from the City of Wasco indicating

26
27
28
1

Plaintiff may choose to have a copy of the records produced to his counsel at the same time—at his expense.

1

1

whether Mr. Brown blamed anyone for the loss of his job and the like. As to the documents related to

2

the job at the CDCR, the Court will look for records different from what he has testified to already that

3

bear on his emotional distress damage claim. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

4

1.

No later than August 12, 2016, counsel for the defendant SHALL submit a letter to the

5

deposition officer and the recipients of the subpoenas, requiring the records to be produced to the

6

Court at the United States Courthouse, located at 510 19th Street, Suite 200, Bakersfield, California.

7
8
9
10

2.

If after conducting the in camera review, the Court finds no disclosable records, it will

issue an order explaining its rationale for its determination;
3.

If after conducting the in camera review, the Court finds disclosable records, it will s

issue an order broadly describing the documents and allow the plaintiff to offer further objections.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 8, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2