Martin v. City of Vallejo

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/10/2014 GRANTING 26 Motion re Protective Order, 27 Motion to Compel Discovery; ORDERING the defendants to produce to the plaintiff within 30 days, responsive documents for the prior ten years o r to submit some, or all, said documents to the court for in camera review; ORDERING the defendants to file and serve a proposed stipulated protective order; ORDERING the plaintiff to file any objections to the proposed stipulated protective order within fourteen days of service of said proposed order. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEON JEROME MARTIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:14-cv-0554 DAD PS

ORDER

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
This matter came before the court on December 10, 2014, for the hearing of plaintiff’s

17
18

October 16, 2014, motion to compel (Dkt. No. 27) and plaintiff’s motion regarding the terms of a

19

protective order. (Dkt. No. 26.) Assistant City Attorney Kelly Trujillo appeared on behalf of the

20

defendants and plaintiff Leon Martin appeared on his own behalf.
Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set

21
22

forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 27) and motion regarding the terms of a

23
24

protective order (Dkt. No. 26) are granted;

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

2. Within 30 days, defendants shall produce to plaintiff responsive documents for the

2

prior ten years or submit some, or all, of those documents to the court for in camera review1 if

3

necessary2;

4
5

3. Defendants shall also file a proposed stipulated protective order and serve a
copy of that proposed stipulated protective order on plaintiff; and

6

4. Plaintiff shall file objections to the proposed stipulated protective order, if any,

7

within fourteen days of the date plaintiff is served with a copy of the proposed stipulated

8

protective order.

9

Dated: December 10, 2014

10
11
12
13
14

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.consent\martin0554.oah.121014.docx

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

Defendants are cautioned that documents should be submitted for the court’s in camera review
only if truly necessary and that defendant’s submission should not be voluminous. If defendants’
submission does not comply with these principles the court will reconsider the order allowing
defendants to submit documents for in camera review prior to production.
2

In the event that defendants move for reconsideration of this order, this order shall be stayed
pending the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion for reconsideration.
2