Lam v. City of Los Banos

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/1/2016 ORDERING [ 19 ] As to Production of documents Set No. 9, defendants shall produce discribed documents no later than 3/4/2016; as to Set One No. 10, Set One No. 11, Set Two Nos. 23 and 24, as discribed in this order; Plaintiffs have also agreed to seek a narrow extension of the discovery deadline from Judge England for the limited purposed of facilitating such production and resolution of related disputes. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TAN LAM, et al.,

12

No. 2:15-cv-0531-MCE-KJN
Plaintiffs,

13

v.

ORDER

14

CITY OF LOS BANOS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
On February 29, 2016, the court conducted an informal telephonic discovery conference

18
19

concerning certain requests for production of documents (“RPD”) propounded by plaintiffs on

20

defendants. At the conference, attorney Melissa Nold appeared on behalf of plaintiffs, and

21

attorneys Dale Allen and Philip Downs appeared on behalf of defendants. For the reasons

22

discussed with the parties at that conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. As to RPD Set One No. 9, defendants shall produce, for any of the non-defendant

23
24

officers who later arrived at the scene of the incident, any internal affairs records that

25

relate to discipline for tampering with evidence, dishonesty, or incidents of improper

26

omission of information from reports that actually rose to the level of an investigation.

27

Such records shall be provided no later than March 4, 2016.

28

////
1

1

2. As to RPD Set One No. 10, the court denies plaintiffs’ request for any further

2

production of post-incident internal affairs records involving officer Acosta beyond

3

what defendants have already produced.

4

3. As to RPD Set One No. 11, defendants shall provide plaintiffs with a declaration

5

under penalty of perjury from an appropriate person who was present at the interview

6

of officer Acosta, who explains that a video recording of the interview was never

7

made due to error, malfunction, or other articulated reasons. The declaration shall be

8

provided no later than March 4, 2016.

9

4. As to RFP Set One No. 11, defendants shall further provide to plaintiffs the results of

10

any gunshot residue testing when it becomes available. Defendants have agreed to

11

provide such results even if it only becomes available after the discovery completion

12

deadline.

13

5.

As to RFP Set Two Nos. 23 and 24, the court declines to rule on defendants’

14

production obligations at this juncture, especially as defendants’ responses are not yet

15

due. Nevertheless, the parties have agreed to cooperate to seek any responsive

16

documents from the VA by (a) defendants requesting such documents from the VA

17

directly with appropriate authorization from officer Acosta, and (b) plaintiffs

18

subpoenaing such documents from the VA, with an appropriate authorization from

19

officer Acosta provided by defendants and with production in response to that

20

subpoena to be made only to defendants’ counsel. Once defendants have received and

21

reviewed the documents, and if the parties are unable to informally resolve their

22

dispute with respect to whether such documents need to be produced to plaintiffs,

23

defendants may submit any disputed documents to the court for in camera review

24

before the operative discovery completion deadline. Plaintiffs have also agreed to

25

seek a narrow extension of the discovery deadline from Judge England for the limited

26

purpose of facilitating such production and resolution of related disputes.

27

////

28

////
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 1, 2016

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3