Dagdagan v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 48

SUMMARY ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/6/09 ORDERING that pltf's 43 motions to compel be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in the order. (Yin, K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MACARIO BELEN DAGDAGAN, 8 9 vs. Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-08-0922 GEB GGH IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 11 12 13 Defendants. / Previously pending on this court's law and motion calendar for November 5, 2009, SUMMARY ORDER

14 were plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents, designation of witnesses pursuant to 15 FRCP 30(b)(6), further answers to deposition questions and sanctions, filed on October 27, 2009, 16 and plaintiff's motion to compel expert depositions and sanctions filed on October 28, 2009. 17 Discovery is scheduled to close on November 25, 2009. The court issues the following summary 18 order with a more detailed order to follow. 19 I. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents 20 Requests 3 & 4: Training Materials - Defendants shall bring the training materials to plaintiff's 21 office for inspection and copying, no later than November 19, 2009.1 22 Requests 9 & 11: Complaints Against Defendants - Defendants shall provide unredacted copies of 23 these documents to plaintiff, within fourteen days of the date of this order. 24 25 26 For any of the production ordered in this summary order, defendants are free to designate material as confidential in accordance with the protective order on file, if such designation is otherwise appropriate. 1
1

Any redactions

1 authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be made if and when any of these 2 documents are filed. 3 Requests 12 & 13: Use of Tasers by Defendants - Defendants shall provide unredacted copies of 4 these documents to plaintiff within fourteen days of the date of this order. Any redactions 5 authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be made if and when any of these 6 documents are filed. 7 Request 21: Court Complaints Against Police Department - Defendants shall provide the 8 complaints to plaintiff within fourteen days of the date of this order. 9 Request 22: Internal Affairs Complaints - Within fourteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff 10 shall be allowed to view Internal Affairs Division complaints filed in the last two (2) years. 11 Plaintiff shall designate the cases that he wants produced. Within five days after plaintiff has 12 designated these cases, defendant shall provide the court with the complaint case files for an in13 camera review. Plaintiff shall make no copies, take no notes, and not contact anyone referenced 14 in the reports, until the court has reviewed the casefiles and made a determination. 15 Request 23: Claims Against City - Defendants shall provide unredacted documents to plaintiff 16 within fourteen days of the date of this order. Any redactions authorized by the Federal Rules of 17 Civil Procedure shall be made if and when any of these documents are filed. 18 II. Internal Affairs Investigation of Incident 19 Defendants represented to the court that there was no Internal Affairs investigation

20 of this incident prior to the filing of the claim. Sergeant Massenkoff shall be deposed no later 21 than November 13, 2009, concerning the memo he received that discussed a requested 22 investigation into this incident. 23 III. Deposition of Sergeant John Miller 24 The motion to compel Sergeant Miller to answer certain questions involving the

25 training of Vallejo police officers is denied. 26 2

1 IV. Deposition of Expert Witnesses 2 If any party seeks to extend discovery, that party must make an application to the

3 district judge and let the undersigned know by the close of business on Tuesday, November 10, 4 2009. If discovery is not extended, the expert witnesses must be made available by the current 5 end of discovery date. Should a party not produce experts for deposition, that party shall be 6 precluded from using each unproduced expert in this action. Because it is not disputed that the 7 parties had an agreement to produce experts in California for deposition, if expert depositions are 8 conducted, defendant shall make Maj. Steve Ijames available in Northern California for the 9 deposition. 10 According, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions to compel be

11 granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this order. 12 Dated: November 6, 2009 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
ggh: ab d a g d 0 9 2 2 . so