Feiger v. Smith et al

Filing 72

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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10
11

1:14-cv-01920-DAD-EPG (PC)

ROBERT FEIGER,

ORDER ON ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
OFFICE’S REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION OF ORDER AFTER
INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
(ECF NO. 71)

Plaintiff,
v.
MARLENE SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

On March 10, 2017, the Court issued an order requiring the Attorney General’s Office

15

to send “all of the documents it has received that are related to this case to Kathleen

16

Williams.” (ECF No. 66, pgs. 1-2) (emphasis added). On March 14, 2017, the Attorney

17

General’s Office filed a notice of compliance with this order. (ECF No. 67). Approximately

18

two weeks later, the Attorney General’s Office filed this request, seeking clarification

19

concerning its obligation to produce documents beyond Plaintiff’s non-confidential Central File

20

in this action. (ECF No. 71). The Attorney General’s Office stated that it has possession of

21

Plaintiff’s medical files in addition to Plaintiff’s c-file.

22

For the sake of clarification, the Court reiterates that the Attorney General’s Office is

23

required to send to Kathleen Williams all documents it has received that are related to this case.

24

This would include medical files. To the extent that the Court previously suggested that the

25

Attorney General’s Office should disclose Plaintiff’s c-file only, that instruction was based on

26

the understanding, from representatives of the Attorney General’s office, that the c-file

27

comprises the only documents the Attorney General had obtained regarding the case. The

28

Court did not intend to permit the Attorney General’s Office to withhold relevant documents.
1

1

The Court knows of no legal basis for an initial counsel to obtain relevant documents and then

2

withhold them from subsequent counsel, and relatedly from discovery on defendants.1

3

Thus, all documents, including the c-file, medical file, or any other documents obtained

4

by the Attorney General’s office in this case when it was acting as counsel for defendants shall

5

be treated as described under the Court’s order (ECF No. 66).

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 31, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

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.”).
2