Estate of Mark Anthony Scott et al v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 41

ORDER granting in part 36 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/27/14. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ESTATE OF MARK ANTHONY SCOTT,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:13-cv-0024-GEB-KJN

ORDER
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.
Presently pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to

18

interrogatories propounded on defendants Tidwell, Becker, and Xiong. (ECF No. 36.) The

19

parties timely filed a joint statement regarding the discovery disagreement on June 19, 2014.

20

(ECF No. 39.) At the June 26, 2014 hearing, attorney Stewart Katz appeared on behalf of

21

plaintiffs, and attorney Jesse Rivera appeared on behalf of defendants. (ECF No. 40.) After

22

carefully considering the parties’ briefing and oral argument, and for the reasons discussed at the

23

hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24
25
26

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 36) is granted in part along the terms outlined
in this order.
2. Within fourteen (14) days of this order, defendants’ counsel shall subpoena the cell

27

phone records of defendants Tidwell, Becker, and Xiong for the time period January 6,

28

2012, to January 12, 2012, from the respective carriers.
1

1

3. Within 45 days of this order, and as necessary thereafter, defendants’ counsel shall

2

provide plaintiffs’ counsel with a written update, by letter or e-mail, as to the status of

3

the document production in response to the subpoenas.

4

4. Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of all such records in response to the subpoenas,

5

defendants’ counsel shall provide plaintiffs’ counsel with declarations signed by

6

defendants Tidwell, Becker, and Xiong under penalty of perjury, providing

7

information regarding any phone calls or text messages made, sent, or received on

8

these defendants’ cell phones from January 6, 2012 to January 12, 2012, that were

9

either (a) exchanged between these defendants OR (b) exchanged with other persons

10

(to the extent that the communications with others pertain to the death of Mark

11

Anthony Scott and related events). Such information shall include, if available from

12

the subpoenaed records and defendants’ knowledge, the following for each telephone

13

call or text message: (a) the date and time of the call or text message; (b) the duration

14

of the call; and (c) the identities of the caller/sender and receiver.

15
16
17
18

5. In light of providing the above information, defendants need not otherwise further
respond to the interrogatories that are the subject of this motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 27, 2014

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2