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)

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