George et al v. Sonoma County Sherrif's Department et al

Filing 442

ORDER re #425 Order on Motion to Strike,. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on November 11, 2010. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2010)

Download PDF
George et al v. Sonoma County Sherrif's Department et al Doc. 442 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court amends the paragraph at page 5, line 25 through page 6, line 2 of its October 19, 2010 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part County Defendants' Motions to Exclude Evidence and Denying County Defendants' Motion to Strike. The paragraph shall read: Wittels Declaration, Exhibit 98: Mental Health Management Ills. County Defendants argue that this 2004 report is irrelevant because it addresses issues pertaining to the Mental Health Services Division of the Sonoma County Department of Health Services, regarding in large part, a facility that is no longer in operation. Plaintiffs argue that this report is relevant because the evaluations of Ryan by the County Mental Health Services were grossly inadequate. This report is irrelevant. Mental health services are not at issue in this case. The relevance objection is sustained. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 12, 2010 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VALERIE GEORGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., et al., Defendants. / No. C-08-02675 EDL AMENDMENT TO OCTOBER 19, 2010 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND DENYING COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

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?