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)
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?