Halcomb v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/10/2015 ORDERING that within seven days of the date of this order the parties shall file simultaneous briefs, not exceeding five pages in length, addressing whether the discovery at issue should be produced only subject to a protective order. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARLIE HALCOMB,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2796 MCE DAD

v.

ORDER

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On June 5, 2015, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of plaintiff’s motion

17
18

to compel. Attorneys Mark Merin and Paul Masuhara appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and

19

Senior Deputy City Attorney Andrea Velazquez appeared on behalf of the defendants. After

20

hearing argument from the parties, the court took the motion under submission.
In the parties’ May 28, 2015 Joint Statement Re Discovery Disagreement, the parties

21
22

presented their respective arguments solely with regard to whether the discovery plaintiff seeks is

23

protected by the official information privilege. At the June 5, 2015 hearing on the motion to

24

compel, however, it became apparent that the discovery dispute at issue here is not whether the

25

official information privilege applies but whether the discovery should be produced pursuant to a

26

protective order. The parties’ joint statement does not address this issue which it turns out is

27

dispositive of the pending motion.

28

/////
1

1

The undersigned has reviewed the unredacted versions of the Sacramento Police

2

Department General Orders which were submitted by defense counsel for in camera review. At

3

the hearing defense counsel suggested that such materials are routinely produced only if a

4

protective order is in place. Plaintiff’s counsel suggested that no showing has been made that the

5

contents of the General Orders sought should be produced subject to a protective order. Beyond

6

those assertions, however, the parties have not addressed the issue, nor have they cited specific

7

authorities in support of their respective positions with respect to a protective order.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven days of the date of this order

9

the parties shall file simultaneous briefs, not exceeding five pages in length, addressing whether

10

the discovery at issue should be produced only subject to a protective order.

11

Dated: June 10, 2015

12
13
14
15

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.civil\halcomb2796.ord.re.brief.docx

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2