Smith v. Hernandez et al

Filing 40

ORDER Granting Defendants' 39 Request for Clarification of Court Order Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/6/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DELBERT J. SMITH, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 C. HERNANDEZ, et al., 13 Defendants. Case No. 1:16-cv-01267-DAD-SAB (PC) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF COURT ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (ECF No. 39) 14 15 Plaintiff Delbert J. Smith is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 16 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 17 On September 26, 2017, the Court issued an order requiring Defendants to produce 18 certain materials that Plaintiff sought in a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum. 19 (ECF No. 38.) Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion seeking clarification of that 20 order. (ECF No. 39.) 21 The Court’s order required Defendants to provide a response to Plaintiff’s request 3E: All 22 documents in the personnel files of Defendants Hernandez, Zuniga, and Cramer regarding 23 602/staff complaints against them for allegations of excessive force on inmates, from 2006 24 through and including 2016. (ECF No. 38, at p. 2.) Defendants state that they interpret the order 25 to require them to produce documents from Defendants’ official personnel files showing 26 disciplinary actions as a result of a 602/staff complaint that alleged excessive force on inmates, 27 from 2006 through and including 2016, to the extent those documents exist. Defendants further 28 state that they interpret the order as not requiring them to produce unsubstantiated complaints 1 against Defendants, as these would not have led to any discipline and therefore such documents 2 would not be maintained in Defendants’ personnel files. Defendants’ interpretation of the order is correct. Plaintiff sought employee records, and 3 4 the Court only ordered the production of such records, subject to certain narrowing of the scope 5 of the request. Documents outside of the Defendants’ employee records were not sought by 6 Plaintiff, and are not ordered to be produced at this time. Accordingly, Defendants’ request for clarification of the Court’s order is HERBY 7 8 GRANTED, as explained above. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: October 6, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?