United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 118

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/18/2018 DIRECTING parties on discovery issues. Any request for expedited discovery beyond the parameters of this order is DENIED. (See Order for details and instructions). (York, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 13 14 No. 2:18-cv-490-JAM-KJN Plaintiff, v. ORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 On May 18, 2018, the court, at the parties’ request, conducted a hearing regarding 19 expedited discovery in connection with defendant State of California’s (“California”) opposition 20 to plaintiff United States of America’s (“United States”) pending motion for a preliminary 21 injunction. At the hearing, attorneys Erez Reuveni, Lauren Bingham, and David Shelledy 22 appeared on behalf of the United States, and attorneys Lee Sherman and Anthony Hakl appeared 23 on behalf of California. 24 25 26 After carefully considering the parties’ joint letter brief (ECF No. 95) and the parties’ oral argument at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The United States may depose Joe Dominic regarding paragraphs 6-13 of his 27 declaration, including: (a) CLETS and all of its databases in broad, general terms, as 28 discussed in greater detail on the record at the hearing; and (b) more specific 1 1 information concerning the databases for Supervised Release File, California Sex 2 Arson Registry, and the Automated Criminal History System. The United States may 3 also depose Mr. Dominic regarding the reporting requirements for local law 4 enforcement authorities established in a memorandum signed by Mr. Dominic as 5 discussed in greater detail on the record at the hearing, and whether or not any of the 6 information responsive to such reporting requirements is already in California’s 7 possession. 8 2. The United States may depose Arif Alikhan regarding the contents of his declaration. 9 3. The United States may depose Tom Wong regarding paragraphs 8-41 of his 10 11 declaration. 4. Each deposition shall be limited to four (4) hours of questioning by the United States, 12 although the court expects the parties to make reasonable and appropriate 13 accommodations, if necessary. Additionally, California may, but need not, also elect 14 to question the deponents at their depositions, with logistical notice provided to the 15 United States in advance of the depositions. 16 5. The deponents shall produce before or at the depositions all documents and data 17 discussed or relied upon in their declarations, except that for any surveys conducted 18 the deponents need not provide the identities of any survey respondents. 19 6. All depositions shall take place no later than June 1, 2018, absent an agreement by the 20 parties. The parties shall advise the undersigned’s courtroom deputy clerk once 21 dates/times for depositions have been determined. 22 7. The parties shall further meet and confer concerning the United States’ interrogatories 23 regarding the “available to the public” provision of California Government Code 24 Section 7284.6(a)(1)(C) and Information Bulletin 2018-DLE-01, with California to 25 notify the United States by May 22, 2018, at or before 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time, 26 regarding its ability to respond to some or all of the interrogatories. If, after 27 exhausting good-faith meet-and-confer efforts, the parties are unable to reach an 28 agreement, the parties may request a further telephonic conference with the court. 2 1 8. If the parties anticipate the need of a protective order to facilitate the production of 2 documents and deposition testimony, they shall submit an appropriate proposed 3 stipulated protective order for the court’s consideration and approval as soon as 4 possible. 5 9. Any request for expedited discovery beyond the parameters of this order is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: May 18, 2018 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?