Grismore et al v. City of Bakersfield et al

Filing 39

ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/26/2018. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY GRISMORE et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No.: 1:17-CV-00413- JLT
ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW

v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
The Court has conducted the in camera review of records produced by the

17
18

Bakersfield Police Department (Doc. 37). The Court finds that there are few records that could

19

bear on the issues raised in this litigation. Though the Court will order some of the records

20

produced, it makes no comment whether they may, ultimately, be admitted at trial. The Court

21

ORDERS:
1.

22

The documents identified as files 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 16 on the thumb drive

23

provided to the Court, SHALL be produced. The identities and personal identifiers of all officers,

24

except those named in this litigation, may be redacted. In addition, the names and personal

25

identifiers of witnesses and complainants may be redacted;

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

2.

2
3

The documents SHALL be produced as soon as possible but no later than April 9,

3.

1

At the option of the defendants, the documents produced SHALL be returned by

2018;

4

the plaintiffs to the defendants at the conclusion of this litigation or destroyed. The documents are

5

confidential and any information in the documents SHALL NOT be disseminated beyond those

6

who absolutely must know it and all who learn of the information contained in the documents

7

SHALL keep the information confidential;

8
9

4.

Objections to this order may be filed within five days. In the event there are

objections, the production date may be extended by the Court as needed.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 26, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2