Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, et al

Filing 630

Second ORDER re: September 22, 2011 status conference. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 09/08/11. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted version of August 25, 2011 order [docket no. 626])(tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

6
7
8
9

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

MASTER CASE FILE
NO. C00-4599 TEH
SECOND ORDER RE:
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 STATUS
CONFERENCE

Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
After carefully considering the parties’ responses to the Court’s August 25, 2011 order

12 that was filed under seal, the Court now files the attached redacted version of that order in
13 the public record. The Court finds that Officer Jimenez’s name is a matter of public record,
14 as his case was reported in the local press. His name will therefore not be redacted.
15 However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court grants Defendants’ request to redact the
16 determinations of the Internal Affairs Division and Executive Force Review Board. The
17 parties shall immediately meet and confer and notify the Court if they learn that such
18 findings are part of the public record.
19

The Court agrees with the parties that portions of the discussion at the September 22,

20 2011 status conference should be sealed from the public. The parties’ response references
21 discussions “in chambers,” but the Court now clarifies that the status conference will take
22 place in its entirety in Courtroom No. 2. The parties shall plan to address all public matters
23 first. At the conclusion of those matters, the Court will then seal the courtroom, and the
24 status conference will proceed with discussion of confidential matters. It is the Court’s
25 intention to include in the confidential discussions all counsel, the Chief of Police, Assistant
26 Chief of Police, and City Administrator, as well as the Mayor, should she choose to attend
27 the status conference. The parties and Intervenor Oakland Police Officers’ Association
28 (“OPOA”) shall meet and confer and attempt to agree on whether any other individuals

1 should be allowed to participate in the confidential discussions. They shall include in their
2 joint status conference statement a list of individuals who will be part of the confidential
3 discussions and, if necessary, any individuals whose participation is disputed. The parties
4 and OPOA shall also meet and confer and set forth their views on which matters they believe
5 may be discussed in the public portion of the status conference and which should be kept
6 confidential.
7

Those portions of the joint status statement that will discuss confidential matters

8 should be filed under seal, but the Court cannot determine in a vacuum what specific
9 information should be sealed. Accordingly, the parties shall comply with Civil Local Rule

11 version of the statement shall be timely filed in the public record on or before the
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10 79-5 and General Order No. 62 when filing their joint statement, except that a redacted

12 September 15 deadline.
13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16 Dated: 09/08/11
17

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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