Hauseur v. Clark et al

Filing 60

ORDER on Attorney General's Office's Request for Clarification of Order After Initial Scheduling Conference 59 ; ORDER REQUIRING Attorney General's Office to Submit Additional Information, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/31/17: 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 10 11 1:14-cv-01987-DAD-EPG (PC) MARK HAUSEUR, ORDER ON ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER AFTER INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE Plaintiff, v. NATALIE CLARK, et al., (ECF NO. 59) Defendants. ORDER REQUIRING ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 12 13 TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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. 55, pgs. 1-2) (emphasis added). On March 14, 2017, the Attorney General’s Office filed a notice of compliance with this order. (ECF No. 57). 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. 59). 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 1 1 comprises the only documents the Attorney General had obtained regarding the case. The 2 Court did not intend to permit the Attorney General’s Office to withhold relevant documents. 3 The Court knows of no legal basis for an initial counsel to obtain relevant documents and then 4 withhold them from subsequent counsel, and relatedly from discovery on defendants.1 5 Thus, all documents, including the c-file, medical file, or any other documents obtained 6 by the Attorney General’s office in this case when it was acting as counsel for defendants shall 7 be treated as described under the Court’s order (ECF No. 55). 8 Additionally, the Court requests clarification to the extent that the Attorney General’s 9 possession of documents is relevant to Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. The Court denied 10 Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against the Attorney General’s Office in part because the 11 Attorney General’s Office did not conduct “discovery” in obtaining Plaintiff’s Central File. 12 During the conference, the Attorney General’s representatives did not describe any other 13 documents or how they were obtained. While it may be that the denial of the motion is proper 14 regarding these documents as well, the Court needs additional information to make such a 15 determination. 16 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, within twenty-one days of the date of service of 17 this order, the Attorney General’s Office is required to file a response, explaining what 18 documents it obtained other than Plaintiff’s Central File and how it came into possession of 19 such documents. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 31, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?