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

Filing 21

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO RETURN DOCUMENTS TO THE OFFICE OF THE FRESNO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/26/2017. (Lafata, M)

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