Doe v. County of Kern et al

Filing 41

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/19/2016. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE DOE, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 15 Defendants. ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-01641 DAD JLT ) ) ORDER AFTER INFORMAL DISCOVERY ) CONFERENCE ) ) ) ) ) ) 16 17 On July 19, 2016, at the request of plaintiff’s counsel, the Court held an informal conference 18 regarding various discovery disputes. The parties discussed the issues at length and some were 19 resolved by counsel and some were resolved by the Court as follows: 20 1. The defendants agreed they will produce the personnel file of Mr. Anderson though they 21 will redact confidential personal identifiers. The defendants need not produce evidence that Mr. 22 Anderson is or was a member of a criminal street gang because the plaintiff has no good faith basis to 23 believe this is true and did not have such a basis at the time she propounded the document request. 24 Also, the plaintiff has not made any showing that, even if Mr. Anderson is or was affiliated with a gang 25 that this fact bears on the County’s Monell liability. Notably, there is no showing that an 26 unconstitutional policy of hiring former or current gang members was the moving force behind the 27 plaintiff’s alleged injury. Thus, to this extent the request to compel production of this information is 28 DENIED; 1 The personnel record that the defendants will produce will include all complaints against Mr. 1 2 Anderson on topics implicated by the complaint but, if there are complaints that are not factually 3 similar to those raised in this action, the defendants may object to the production of these complaints, if 4 they choose. In this event, the defendants SHALL note whether complaints are being withheld to 5 allow the plaintiff to seek further relief from the Court. Alternatively, the defendants may object and 6 then produce the disputed documents to the Court for an in camera review; 2. 7 8 The defendants agreed to produce the full Internal Affairs investigation report with names of employees and child witnesses redacted; 3. 9 The request for the County to admit that its employee is or is not entitled to defense and 10 indemnity is DENIED. The plaintiff’s counsel admit that this information does not bear on any 11 element of any claim raised by the plaintiff nor would it lead to any evidence that may be admitted at 12 trial; thus, the information is not discoverable. The Court rejects the plaintiff’s argument—for purposes 13 of discovery—that the County’s determination as to defense and indemnity does not shift the burden of 14 proof at trial away from the plaintiff and to the County; 4. 15 16 The request for the County to admit that its employee is or is not entitled to defense and indemnity is DENIED. ORDER 17 18 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. 20 described above, no later than close of business on July 20, 2016; 2. 21 22 The plaintiff’s request for the Court to compel the defendants to produce information related to whether Mr. Anderson was or is a member of the Norteños criminal street gang is DENIED; 3. 23 24 The defendants SHALL produce the personnel file of Mr. Anderson, within the confines The defendants SHALL produce the full, redacted summary of the Internal Affairs report, with the redactions described above, no later than close of business on July 20, 2016; 4. 25 The defendants SHALL produce the full Internal Affairs report, with the redactions 26 described above, no later than close of business on August 5, 2016; 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2 5. The plaintiff’s request for the Court to compel the County of Kern to admit or deny that it will defend and indemnify Mr. Anderson is DENIED. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 19, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?