Fox et al v. Anderson et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/7/2012 GRANTING in part 32 Motion to Compel Production of Documents; ORDERING that the County's production and declaration be delivered to Plaintiffs by 6/15/2012. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

BARRY FOX, et al.,

11
12
13

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:11-cv-00419 JAM KJN

v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER
/

15
16

Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of

17

documents by defendant County of Sacramento (“County”) in response to plaintiffs’ fourth set of

18

requests for the production of documents (“RFPs”).1 Generally stated, the fourth set of RFPs

19

requests the production of all warrant applications submitted and obtained throughout the County

20

during the period from January 30, 2000, through January 30, 2010, seeking authorization or

21

authorizing the taking of a minor from his or her parents or guardians and into protective

22

custody. The court heard this matter on its June 7, 2012 law and motion calendar. Attorney

23

Lanny T. Winberry appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Attorney John R. Whitefleet appeared on

24

behalf of the County.

25
1

26

This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California
Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

The undersigned has fully considered the parties’ Joint Statement re Discovery

2

Disagreement and the parties’ oral arguments. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Dkt. No. 32) is granted in part.

5

2.

Defendant County of Sacramento shall produce all available statistical

6

information from relevant County agencies, offices, and departments (e.g., Sacramento County

7

Child Protective Services, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, Sacramento Office of

8

County Counsel, etc.)2 for the period January 30, 2005, through January 30, 2010, evidencing the

9

following, if such statistical information is available:

10

a.

The number of warrant applications submitted to judicial officers

11

within the County seeking authorization to take a minor from his or her guardian(s) or parent(s)

12

and into custody;

13
14

b.

officers and the number of such warrants that were either not approved or denied;

15
16

The number of such warrants that were actually issued by judicial

c.

Which agency applied for such warrants (e.g., Sacramento County

Child Protective Services, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, etc.);

17

d.

Whether such warrants were sought in order to take the minor into

18

“protective custody,” see, e.g., Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 300 et seq., or to take the

19

minor into custody on the basis of the minor’s own conduct, see, e.g., id. §§ 601 et seq.; and

20
21

e.

The number of removals of a minor on the basis of “exigent

circumstances.”

22

3.

Defendant County of Sacramento shall provide plaintiffs with a

23

declaration or declarations sworn under penalty of perjury that substantiate what diligent efforts

24

were made to search for the statistical evidence described above, and why, if at all, the County

25
2

26

The phrase “County agencies, offices, and departments” does not include the Sacramento
County Superior Court or its juvenile divisions.
2

1

was unable to produce such statistical evidence. For example, a declaration might describe the

2

manner in which any warrant-related statistical information and other warrant-related information

3

is stored or not stored.

4

4.

The County’s production and declaration(s) shall be delivered to plaintiffs

5

on or before June 15, 2012, unless the parties file a stipulation and proposed order, and obtain

6

approval of the same by U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez, continuing the June 15, 2012

7

discovery completion deadline in this case to facilitate the production. The parties may cite the

8

undersigned’s ruling on the motion to compel as a basis for such a limited continuance, although

9

approval of that continuance lies solely within Judge Mendez’s discretion.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 7, 2012

12
13
14

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3