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

Filing 694

ORDER clarifying 675 January 24, 2012 order re: the Monitor's authority. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 06/07/12. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2012)

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
ORDER CLARIFYING
JANUARY 24, 2012 ORDER RE:
THE MONITOR’S AUTHORITY

Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

On January 24, 2012, the Court ordered the Chief of Police to “regularly consult with

12 the Monitor on all major decisions that may impact compliance with the [Negotiated
13 Settlement Agreement].” Jan. 24, 2012 Order at 3. If the Chief declines to act in accord
14 with a recommendation by the Monitor, then the City Administrator and Mayor must make
15 themselves available to discuss the intended action with the Monitor. Id. If the City refuses
16 to implement one of the Monitor’s recommendations, then the Court may schedule a hearing
17 at which “the City will bear the burden of persuading the Court that its failure to follow the
18 Monitor’s recommendation will not have a negative impact on the City’s compliance
19 efforts.” Id. The Court now clarifies that any hearings regarding recommendations that
20 involve confidential personnel matters will be held under seal. The Court further clarifies
21 that not all matters may require a hearing, particularly if it appears that the City is
22 intentionally rejecting a recommendation of the Monitor for purposes of delay or is
23 otherwise acting in bad faith.
24

In addition, the Monitor may recommend that certain actions be implemented within a

25 short timeframe. The Monitor shall immediately notify the Court if he recommends that
26 Defendants take any action within twenty-four hours or less. If necessary under the
27 circumstances, the Court expects the parties to be available on short notice for any hearing
28 conducted pursuant to the January 24, 2012 order.

1

Finally, the Court reminds the parties and their personnel that communications by the

2 Monitor, including the consultations and recommendations discussed above, are
3 confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure shall be subject to sanctions.
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7 Dated: 06/07/12
8

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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