Feiger v. Smith et al
ORDER on Attorney General Office's Request for Clarification of Order After Initial Scheduling Conference re 71 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/31/17. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER ON ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
OFFICE’S REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION OF ORDER AFTER
INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
(ECF NO. 71)
MARLENE SMITH, et al.,
On March 10, 2017, the Court issued an order requiring the Attorney General’s Office
to send “all of the documents it has received that are related to this case to Kathleen
Williams.” (ECF No. 66, pgs. 1-2) (emphasis added). On March 14, 2017, the Attorney
General’s Office filed a notice of compliance with this order. (ECF No. 67). Approximately
two weeks later, the Attorney General’s Office filed this request, seeking clarification
concerning its obligation to produce documents beyond Plaintiff’s non-confidential Central File
in this action. (ECF No. 71). The Attorney General’s Office stated that it has possession of
Plaintiff’s medical files in addition to Plaintiff’s c-file.
For the sake of clarification, the Court reiterates that the Attorney General’s Office is
required to send to Kathleen Williams all documents it has received that are related to this case.
This would include medical files. To the extent that the Court previously suggested that the
Attorney General’s Office should disclose Plaintiff’s c-file only, that instruction was based on
the understanding, from representatives of the Attorney General’s office, that the c-file
comprises the only documents the Attorney General had obtained regarding the case. The
Court did not intend to permit the Attorney General’s Office to withhold relevant documents.
The Court knows of no legal basis for an initial counsel to obtain relevant documents and then
withhold them from subsequent counsel, and relatedly from discovery on defendants.1
Thus, all documents, including the c-file, medical file, or any other documents obtained
by the Attorney General’s office in this case when it was acting as counsel for defendants shall
be treated as described under the Court’s order (ECF No. 66).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 31, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
See, e.g., California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-700(d)(1) (“A member whose employment
has terminated shall:  Subject to any protective order or non-disclosure agreement, promptly release to the client,
at the request of the client, all the client papers and property. ‘Client papers and property’ includes
correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts, exhibits, physical evidence, expert's reports, and other items
reasonably necessary to the client's representation, whether the client has paid for them or not.”).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?