Galzinski v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying without prejudice 24 plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/25/11. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

HARALD MARK GALZINSKI,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. CIV S-10-2860 KJM CKD P

vs.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff has filed a motion in which he requests that the court order unspecified

17

persons at the Sacramento County Jail to preserve evidence collected on December 17, 2003

18

relating to plaintiff’s being arrested that day. The biggest problem with plaintiff’s motion is that

19

it is not clear the evidence still exists. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion will be denied. However,

20

plaintiff may re-file his motion if he learns through discovery, or some other means, that relevant

21

evidence is not being preserved despite the duty of parties in federal court to do so. See Young

22

v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-03579-JF/PVT, 2010 WL 3564847, *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010).

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////
1

1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 13, 2011 “motion
for protective order” is denied without prejudice.
Dated: August 25, 2011

4

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9

1
galz2860.mfp

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2