Vargas et al v. Binnewies et al

Filing 80

Order re production of autopsy photos, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/16/2019. (Rosales, O.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION

10
THE ESTATE OF ARMANDO VARGAS AND
11 GLORIA REDONDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE
12 ESTATE OF ARMANDO VARGAS,
13

No. 1:16-CV-01240-DAD-EPG
ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF
AUTOPSY PHOTOS

Plaintiffs,

14
v.
15
DOUG BINNEWIES, Individually, CODIE HART,
16 Individually, DEPUTY COOPER, Individually,
DEPUTY SMALLS, Individually, DEPUTY
17
REEDER, Individually, DEPUTY DAY,
18 Individually, DEPUTY DETRICH Individually,
DEPUTY JAY, Individually, PAMELA AHLIN,
19 Individually, DOLLY MATTEUCCI, Individually,
AND DOES 1-15, Inclusive
20
Defendants.
21

22
23

On January 11, 2019, the Court held an informal discovery conference regarding, among other

24 things, the disclosure of autopsy photographs taken of Armando Vargas. The County of Mariposa (the
25 “County”) asserts that the photographs are subject to the requirements of California Code of Civil
26 Procedure section 129 (“CCP § 129”), and that the County is therefore precluded from disclosing the
27 photographs except as allowed under CCP § 129.
28
1

1

After consideration of the positions of the parties, the undersigned ORDERS as follows:

2

1.

Good cause is shown that the autopsy photographs meet the threshold for disclosure and
should be provided in discovery.1

3
2.

4

The County of Mariposa is accordingly ordered to provide copies of the autopsy

5

photographs to Plaintiff’s counsel no later five (5) court days after the signing of this

6

Order.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
Dated:

9

January 16, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court is not ruling on the admissibility of these photographs at trial.
2