Cooley v. City of Vallejo

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/20/15 ORDERING that Defendants January 5, 2015 motion for reconsideration 45 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part as stated on the record at the February 20, 2015 hearing; On or before April 17 , 2015, defendants shall produce to plaintiff all responsive documents for the prior seven years, as ordered in the courts November 14, 2014 order, and an additional three years of limited responsive documents consisting of any complaints of excessiveforce and the official resolution of those complaints; Within seven days of the date of this order each party shall file a proposed amended schedule for the remainder of this action.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0240 DAD PS

v.

ORDER

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
This matter came before the court on February 20, 2015, for the hearing of defendants’

17
18

motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 45.) Attorney Furah Faruqui appeared on behalf of the

19

defendants and plaintiff Frederick Marceles Cooley appeared on his own behalf.
Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at those made the hearing, and for the

20
21

reasons set forth on the record at that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants January 5, 2015 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 45) is denied in part

22
23

and granted in part as stated on the record at the February 20, 2015 hearing;
2. On or before April 17, 2015, defendants shall produce to plaintiff all responsive

24
25

documents for the prior seven years, as ordered in the court’s November 14, 2014 order, and an

26

additional three years of limited responsive documents consisting of any complaints of excessive

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

force and the official resolution of those complaints1;

2

3. This order is without prejudice to plaintiff moving to compel additional documents

3

related to three year period of limited document production after plaintiff receives defendants’

4

production; and

5

4. Within seven days of the date of this order each party shall file a proposed amended

6

schedule for the remainder of this action.

7

Dated: February 20, 2015

8
9
10

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.consent\cooley0240.oah.022015.docx

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court’s November 14, 2014 order also ordered defendants to file a proposed stipulated
protective order and serve a copy of that proposed stipulated protective order on the plaintiff.
Defendants have not yet complied with that order. Accordingly, defendants shall file a proposed
stipulated protective order and serve a copy of that document on the plaintiff forthwith. If
plaintiff objects to any portion of the proposed stipulated protective order, plaintiff shall file those
objections within fourteen days of being served with the copy of the proposed stipulated
protective order.
2