Fox et al v. Anderson et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying defendants' 38 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/9/12. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

BARRY FOX, NARCISA FOX,
individually and as parents and
natural guardians and Guardians
ad litem of A.F., D.F., S.F.,
and M.F., as minors,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, SCOTT
)
ANDERSON, RICH COCKERTON,
)
BRENDAN MCATEE, ELISA OLMO, SOKA )
OM, JASON WALKUP, JOY PIKE, CITY )
OF RANCHO CORDOVA, JASMINE
)
DELGADO, and DOES 1 THROUGH 30, )
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 2:11-CV-00419 JAM-KJN
ORDER DENYING
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO’S MOTON
FOR RECONSIDERATION

21
22

On June 7, 2012 Magistrate Judge Newman heard Plaintiffs Barry

23

Fox and Narcisa Fox’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to compel

24

the production of documents by Defendant County of Sacramento

25

(“County or Defendant”) in response to Plaintiffs’ fourth set of

26

requests for the production of documents (“RFPs”).

27

stated, the fourth set of RFPs requests the production of all

28

warrant applications submitted and obtained throughout the County
1

Generally

1

during the period from January 30, 2000 through January 30, 2010,

2

seeking authorization or authorizing the taking of a minor from his

3

or her parents or guardians and into protective custody.

4

Motion to Compel (Doc. #32) and Joint Statement re Motion to Compel

5

(Doc. #33).

6

See

On June 8, 2012, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs’

7

Motion to Compel in part.

8

to produce all available statistical information from relevant

9

County agencies, offices, and departments from January 30, 2005

10

through January 30, 2010.

11

The Magistrate Judge ordered the County

See Doc. #36 (hereinafter “the Order”).1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303 govern the

12

standard for a Motion for Reconsideration.

The district court “may

13

reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that

14

the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to

15

law.”

28 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1)A); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 303(f).

16

The County’s main arguments are that the Order is overly broad

17

and that it forces the County to produce evidence that not relevant

18

to Plaintiffs’ case.

19

erroneous or contrary to law.

20

The Court finds that the Order is not clearly

Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, the Order does not

21

require county-wide data, but rather “information from relevant

22

County agencies, offices, and departments (e.g. Sacramento County

23

Child Protective Services, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department,

24

Sacramento Office of County Counsel, etc.). . . .”

25

#36)(emphasis added).

26

specific as to which agencies, offices, and departments shall

Order (Doc.

While the Order could have been more

27
1

28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).
2

1

produce relevant data, the Order, as written, is not clearly

2

erroneous.

3

statistics, the data requested does not impinge on attorney/client

4

privileges or confidential information.

5

to start the statistical analysis in 2005 is well within the

6

judge’s discretion.

7

a child might be taken into protective custody, see Cal. Welfare &

8

Institutions Code §§ 300 et. seq., the fact that there are several

9

reasons to place a child into protective custody does not

Furthermore, because the Order requires only

Additionally, the decision

Finally, while there are numerous reasons why

10

invalidate Plaintiffs’ general Monell theory that Defendants are

11

not properly requesting warrants before removing children from

12

their parents.

13

The Order requires Defendants to produce relevant evidence.

14

Whether warrants were issued to either the County’s CPS workers or

15

its peace officers would indicate whether the County had a de facto

16

policy not to get warrants before removing children from their

17

families.

18

Plaintiffs’ Monell claims, it was not clearly erroneous for the

19

magistrate judge to order statistical evidence even though

20

Plaintiffs did not specifically ask for it.

Thus, because the statistical evidence is relevant to

21
22

III. ORDER

23

For the reasons set forth above,

24

The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.

25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 9, 2012

____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
3