Centeno et al v. City Of Fresno et al

Filing 35

ORDER Following In Camera Review signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/18/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHANNEL CENTENO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

Case No. 1:16-cv-00653-DAD-SAB
ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA
REVIEW

v.

14

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On December 29, 2016, an order issued granting in part and denying in part, Plaintiffs’

18 motion to compel discovery in this action.

In the order, Defendants were to lodge the

19 performance reviews of Defendants Zebulon Price and Felipe Lucero for in camera review. On
20 January 10, 2017, Defendants filed a notice of lodging of the documents for in camera review.
21

The Court has reviewed performance evaluations of Defendant Lucero for the periods of

22 1/12/15 to 1/11/16; 1/7/14 to 1/12/15; 1/6/13 to 1/13/14; 1/3/12 to 1/6/13; 1/3/11 to 1/3/12;
23 1/1/10 to 12/31/10; and 9/3/09 to 6/11/10. The Court also reviewed performance evaluations of
24 Defendant Price for the periods of 1/12 16 to 1/7/17; 1/12/15 to 1/11/16; 1/7/14 to 1/12/15;
25 1/6/13 to 1/13/14; 1/3/11 to 1/1/12; 1/3/11 to 9/1/11; 1/4/10 to 8/1/10; and 1/4/09 to 1/3/10.
26

In the motion to compel, Plaintiffs argued that documents were sought to show that the

27 defendants had a history of using excessive force or filing false police reports and there was no
28 discipline or there was ratification of these activities. Plaintiff’s also argued that documents

1

1 which would indicate poor decision-making, discipline, or other instances of use of force could
2 lead to evidence of their custom and practice of filing to follow policies and procedures.
3 However, the Court finds that only evidence of excessive force incidents or that would go to
4 issues of credibility would be relevant to the claims at issue here and proportional to the needs of
5 the case.
Upon review of the documents, the Court finds that the performance evaluations do not

6

7 contain evidence relevant to the issues pending in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to
8 compel the production of the defendants’ performance reviews is HEREBY DENIED.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated:

January 18, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2