Polk v. Cavin et al

Filing 224

ORDER FOR RETURN OF DOCUMENT TO PUBLIC DEFENDER re 174 Objection and Request for Sanctions Against the CCC Public Defender filed by Susan Mae Polk. Request for sanctions is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 11/27/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/27/2012: # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service) (klhS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

SUSAN MAE POLK,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

v.

Case No.: 3:08-cv-01483-MMC (JCS)
ORDER FOR RETURN OF DOCUMENT
TO PUBLIC DEFENDER [Docket No.174]

DEPUTY JAMIS CAVIN, et al.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff filed an Objection and Request for Sanctions against the Contra Costa County

14

Public Defender [docket no.174]. The Court ordered further briefing, and both the Defendants

15

and Plaintiff filed additional pleadings regarding the matter.

16

The course of events giving rise to this motion are clear. Plaintiff sought memoranda

17

regarding the incident that lies at the center of this litigation. After a motion to compel was filed,

18

the County Counsel and the Public Defender asserted that a memo prepared by Deputy Public

19

Defender Laurie Mont was protected by the attorney work product doctrine. The Court disagreed

20

and ordered the document turned over to Plaintiff. County Counsel’s office, on behalf of the

21

Public Defender, gave a copy of the memo to plaintiff, and kept one copy in the Counsel’s office.

22

Counsel and the Public Defender have admitted in their papers that the memo is work

23

product, and this Court determined that, as Plaintiff was the client involved, Plaintiff was entitled

24

to see the work product. However, nothing in this Court’s orders gave the Public Defender the

25

right to turn the document at issue over to the Counsel’s office (who represents defendants in this

26

matter). The Counsel’s office is adverse to Plaintiff, and is not entitled to see work product

27

prepared for the Plaintiff unless the standard established by Rule 26(b)(3). No such showing has

28

been made. Accordingly, counsel for Defendants is ORDERED to return all copies of Ms.

1
2

Mo
ont’s memora
ancume of th
heAugust 29 2003 appp
9,
pearence to t Public Defender’s Of
the
ffice.
The req
quest for sanc
ctions is DE
ENIED.

3
4

Dat
ted: Novemb 27, 2012
ber
2

5

___
__________
___________
________
Jos
seph C. Sper
ro
Un
nited States M
Magistrate Ju
udge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2