Blight v. Manteca et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/16/16 ORDERING that the Court's 11/07/16 26 Order is CONFIRMED; defendants shall provide plaintiff's counsel with access to a redacted version of Exhibit C, under the protections specified in the 26 Order. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOANNE BLIGHT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-2513 WBS AC

v.

ORDER

CITY OF MANTECA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel (ECF No. 13) was referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal.

17
18

R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(1). On November 7, 2016, the court granted the motion, in part, and

19

subject to confidentiality limitations. ECF No. 26.
I. BACKGROUND

20
21

Defendants have filed a Request for Clarification, in which they disclose that they do not

22

have their own unsealed copy of “Exhibit C” (of the Garcia Declaration in support of the Search

23

Warrant), which this court ordered produced. ECF No. 29. Instead, defendants assert that they

24

possess only the original of that document, which was placed in a sealed envelope by the state

25

court judge on October 24, 2014, and then placed in defendants’ custody for safekeeping. This

26

court’s order was predicated upon defendants having a copy of their own document.

27

///

28

///
1

1

II. ANALYSIS

2

Defendants have provided photographs of the envelope containing Exhibit C. See ECF

3

No. 30 at 4-5. Those photographs confirm that the state court ordered that Exhibit C “be sealed

4

and kept in the custody of the Affiant’s law enforcement agency and not be made part of the

5

public record until further order of this court or any competent court.” ECF No. 30 at 4

6

(emphases added).

7

No part of this court’s order calls for Exhibit C to be “made part of the public record.”

8

Rather, it calls upon the parties to create a strict, “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” stipulation to govern

9

plaintiff’s attorney’s access to the document. Moreover, nothing in this court’s order requires that

10

Exhibit C leave defendants’ custody.

11

Of course, the seal on the envelope will need to be broken to allow plaintiff’s counsel

12

access to the document within. To the degree this can only be ordered by a “competent court,”

13

this court has ordered it. This court has jurisdiction over the action and the discovery disputes

14

within the action, and is therefore a competent court to issue such an order. The court finds

15

nothing in the state’s Evidence Code, People v. Hobbs, 7 Cal. 4th 948 (1994), or California Rule

16

of Court 2.550(d),1 cited in Garcia’s declaration in support of sealing Exhibit C, that purports to

17

divest this court of jurisdiction over a discovery matter in a case before it.

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25
26
27
28

1

In requesting that Exhibit C be sealed, defendant Garcia cited “California Rule of Court
Rule 243.1, subd. (d).” However, that rule was renumbered in 2007 as Rule 2.550(d). Also, the
Advisory Committee Comment on the Rule states that it does not apply to “records that courts
must keep confidential by law,” including “search warrant affidavits sealed under People v.
Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948.” Cal. St. Trial Ct. Rule 2.550 (Editor’s Notes / Advisory Committee
Notes).
2

1
2

III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

3

1. The court’s order of November 7, 2016 (ECF No. 26), is CONFIRMED; and

4

2. Defendants shall provide plaintiff’s counsel with access to a redacted version of

5

Exhibit C, under the protections specified in the court’s November 7, 2016 order.

6

DATED: November 16, 2016.

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