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)

Download PDF
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

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?