Rodriguez, et al. v. City of Fresno, et al.

Filing 21


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TINA MA, et al., Plaintiffs, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO RETURN DOCUMENTS TO THE OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY CITY OF FRESNO, et al., 13 Case No. 1:15-cv-01426-WBS-MJS Defendants. 14 15 16 17 The Court is in receipt of a copy of correspondence, dated February 23, 2017, 18 from Douglas O. Treisman, Senior Deputy District Attorney at the Fresno County Office 19 of the District Attorney, to Stanley S. Ma, counsel for Plaintiffs. The Office of the District 20 Attorney is not a party to this action and Mr. Treisman is not counsel of record. 21 The correspondence appears to relate to a subpoena duces tecum that 22 apparently was served on the Office of the District Attorney. In the letter, Mr. Treisman 23 states that he has sent a declaration and an opinion letter to the “Federal Court” “under 24 seal” explaining his inability to provide the opinion letter to Plaintiff’s counsel. He states 25 he will provide the opinion letter if required to do so by court order. 26 A review of the docket reflects that there are no discovery disputes in this matter 27 that are pending before the Court. Neither party has requested a ruling regarding the 28 1 District Attorney’s release of the opinion letter. The Office of the District Attorney has not 2 sought to quash the subpoena. In short, there is no matter before the Court to which this 3 correspondence pertains. 4 Furthermore, the letter from Mr. Treisman to Mr. Ma is the only correspondence 5 the Court has received in this regard. Mr. Treisman has not moved to submit documents 6 under seal and the Court has received no such submissions. The copy of the 7 correspondence that the Court received does not include the opinion letter at issue, 8 despite references therein to submission of same to the “Federal Court” “under seal.” 9 Thus, even if the Court was inclined to rule on a matter that no party or real party in 10 interest has properly brought before it, it could not do so because it is wholly without 11 information regarding the nature of the dispute or the evidence at issue. 12 13 Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office is HEREBY DIRECTED to return Mr. Treisman’s letter and the attached declaration to the Office of the District Attorney. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2017 /s/ 17 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?