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

Filing 981

ORDER requiring updated lists of persons responsible. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 05/29/14. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2014)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 DELPHINE ALLEN, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, 7 8 v. CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., 9 MASTER CASE FILE NO. C00-4599 TEH ORDER REQUIRING UPDATED LISTS OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE Defendants. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Beginning in August 2010, Defendants were obligated to file and keep current a list of 12 persons responsible for various tasks. The Court eliminated that requirement following the 13 appointment of the Compliance Director, whose monthly reports included such information. 14 However, the Court has now changed the reporting requirements of the Compliance Director, 15 and his reports no longer detail persons responsible for each task. 16 Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants 17 shall resume filing updated lists of persons responsible with the Court. Defendants must 18 designate individuals responsible for all tasks in the Negotiated Settlement Agreement, as 19 well as the four areas identified in paragraph C.2 of the Court’s December 12, 2012 Order.1 20 Defendants’ filings shall include any updates to changes in the line of authority above the 21 Chief of Police, as such individuals may also be held ultimately responsible for any of 22 Defendants’ shortcomings. Updated lists of persons responsible shall be filed within seven 23 days of any changes. 24 As the Court has repeatedly stated, filing a list of persons responsible will encourage 25 Defendants’ own sense of accountability, which is critical to the success of sustainable 26 1 The Court’s prior orders only required Defendants to identify persons responsible for tasks under active monitoring. However, the Monitor also periodically assesses compliance 28 with inactive tasks to ensure sustainability, and it is therefore important for Defendants to designate a responsible person or persons for all tasks in the NSA. 27 1 reforms. The Court hopes that this case continues on an upward trajectory, but having a list 2 of persons responsible will also allow the Court, if it becomes necessary, to enter an order to 3 show cause against appropriate individuals as to why sanctions, including a possible finding 4 of contempt, should not issue.2 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: 05/29/14 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 2 In addition to holding designated leaders responsible, the Court may also issue an order to show cause against any individual officer or employee who is suspected of 26 interfering with or undermining this Court’s orders. See May 18, 2011 Second Order re: Accountability (noting that “all parties and the [Oakland Police Officers’ Association] now 27 acknowledge that this Court has the legal authority to enter sanctions against any member or employee of the Oakland Police Department who interferes with compliance efforts in this 28 case”). 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?