Johnson, et. al., v. Shasta County, et. al.

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/2/2015 GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART #37 Motion to Compel. It is further ORDERED that the court RESERVES RULING on #35 Motion to Compel until after the parties have attempted to resolve the dispute before the California Superior Court. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BOBBY DARRELL JOHNSON, et al.,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1338-KJM-EFB

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

SHASTA COUNTY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On June 17, 2015, this case was before the court for hearing on plaintiffs’ motions to

18

compel non-party Mary Todd’s compliance with a subpoena duces tecum (ECF No. 35) and to

19

compel defendants Sutter County, Matthew Maples, James Casner, and Michael T. Gwinnup

20

(“Sutter defendants”) to produce documents (ECF No. 37). Attorney Kennedy Helm appeared on

21

behalf of plaintiffs. Attorney John Whitefleet appeared on behalf of the Sutter defendants.

22

Attorney Cameron Cobden appeared on behalf of non-party Mary Todd.

23

For the reasons stated on the record, the court reserves ruling on motion to compel

24

compliance with a subpoena duces tecum (ECF No. 35) until after the parties have attempted to

25

resolve the dispute before the California Superior Court. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents

26

is granted as to Requests for Production Numbers 1(a)-(p), 2, 3, 4(a)-(b), 5-17,1 21-26. The Sutter

27
28

1

Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents Number 15 seeks “Any and all
DOCUMENTS obtained from any other source (i.e., not generated by Defendants), including any
1

1

defendants shall produce documents responsive to these requests within 14 days of the date of this

2

order. When producing the responsive documents, the Sutter defendants shall identify the

3

specific request(s) to which each document pertains. To the extent defendants contend that there

4

are no responsive documents for a particular request, defendants shall provide a verification

5

detailing the search that was conducted, signed by an individual with personal knowledge, and

6

certifying that no responsive documents were found. The motion is denied in all other respects.

7
8

So Ordered.
DATED: July 2, 2015.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

other law enforcement agency, regarding the INCIDENT or PLAINTIFFS. ECF No. 39 at 37
(emphasis added). As explained at the hearing, the request for documents from “any other
source” is overly broad. Therefore, in response to this request the Sutter Defendants need only
produce documents from the California Highway Patrol, Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, Sutter
County District Attorney’s Office, and Shasta County District Attorney’s Office.
2