Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter et al v. San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 05/17/19 ORDERING that the redactions to the Communications List (contact information for law enforcement personnel) and Communications Plan on page 7 of the document are SUSTAINED. All other redact ions, which the City and County characterize as protecting information that discloses "non-obvious police tactics" are OVERRULED. A copy of the IAP without these redactions shall be provided to plaintiffs' counsel by 05/20/19, subject to the "attorneys' eyes only" provision of the operative protective order. In light of this ruling, plaintiffs' pending 42 Motion to Compel is DENIED as moot, and the 07/31/19 hearing is VACATED. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

BLACK LIVES MATTER-STOCKTON
CHAPTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-00591 KJM AC

ORDER
v.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

The undersigned held an informal telephonic discovery conference on this date. Yolanda

18

Huang appeared for plaintiffs and Temitayo Peters appeared for defendants; Jamil Ghannam of

19

the Stockton City Attorney’s Office, representing the Stockton Police Department, also

20

participated in the call. The dispute concerns defendants’ redactions, on grounds of official

21

information privilege, to a single document produced in discovery: an Incident/Operation Plan for

22

Civil Disturbance (“IAP”) created by the Stockton Police Department in advance of the January

23

29, 2018 Superior Court hearing at issue in the Amended Complaint. Following the telephonic

24

conference, the undersigned reviewed both the redacted and unredacted versions of the IAP in

25

camera, and now rules as follows:

26

The redactions to the Communications List (contact information for law enforcement

27

personnel) and Communications Plan on page 7 of the document are sustained. All other

28

redactions, which the City and County characterize as protecting information that discloses “non1

1

obvious police tactics,” are overruled. A copy of the IAP without these redactions shall be

2

provided to plaintiffs’ counsel no later than May 20, 2019, subject to the “attorneys’ eyes only”

3

provision of the operative protective order.

4
5
6
7

In light of this ruling, plaintiffs’ pending motion to compel (ECF No. 42) is DENIED as
moot, and the hearing now set for July 31, 2019 is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 17, 2019

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2