Hicks v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/18/2016 GRANTING 49 Ex Parte Application; TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING Frederick Cooley from viewing the discovery produced by the defendants in this action in response to the 45 Protective Orde r; ALLOWING Mr. Cooley to view the discovery produced in compliance with the 45 Protective order if the defendants' motion in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., no. 2:14-cv-01749 JAM AC (PS) is denied; ORDERING the defendants to file a notice of hearing a similar motion in this action, within 14 days, if the defendants' motion in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., no. 2:14-cv-01749 JAM AC (PS) is granted. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TYRONE EDWARD HICKS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0669 CKD PS (TEMP)

v.

ORDER

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On January 22, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered

18

defendants to produce responsive discovery within thirty days subject to the court’s protective

19

order issued that same day.1 (Dtk. Nos. 44 & 45.) On February 16, 2016, defendants filed an ex

20

parte application seeking an order prohibiting non-party Frederick Cooley from viewing the

21

responsive discovery until defendants’ motion for a protective order against Frederick Cooley

22

filed in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., No. 2:14-cv-1749 JAM AC can be heard on February 24,

23

2016. (Dkt. No. 49.)

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27
28

1

The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ' 636(c)(1). (Dkt. No. 25.)
1

1

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Defendants’ February 16, 2016 ex parte application (Dkt. No. 49 ) is granted;2

3

2. Frederick Cooley is temporarily prohibited from viewing the discovery produced by

4

defendants in this action in response to the Court’s January 22, 2016 order;
3. If defendants’ motion in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., No. 2:14-cv-1749 JAM AC is

5
6

denied, Frederick Cooley may view the discovery produced in compliance with the protective

7

order issued by the court3; and
4. If defendants’ motion in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., No 2:14-cv-1749 JAM AC is

8
9

granted, defendants shall have 14 days to file a notice of hearing a similar motion in this action

10

before the undersigned. Defendants’ motion shall comply with Local Rule 251.4

11

Dated: February 18, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

BVD\hicks0669.exparte.ord

21
2

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

As acknowledged by defendants’ in their application, this order does not alter defendants’ duty
to produce the responsive discovery to the plaintiff in compliance with the court’s January 22,
2016 order. (Defs.’ App. (Dkt. No. 49) at 4.)
3

Having elected not to file a motion for a protective order in this action, the court does not
anticipate that, having lost their motion in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., No. 2:14-cv-1749
JAM AC, defendants would seek to delay this action and re-litigate this issue by filing a
substantially similar motion.
4

In granting defendants’ ex parte application, plaintiff is informed that the court takes no view
on the merits of defendants’ pending motion in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., No. 2:14-cv-1749
JAM AC.
2