Patras et al v. City of Antioch et al

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Laporte granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Compel AS MODIFIED (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2010)

Patras et al v. City of Antioch et al

Doc. 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Kumin Sommers, LLP 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-1Patras et. al., v. City of Antioch, et. al., United States District Court CAND Case No.: CV-09-1891 MMC [PROPOSED] ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RIAZ PATRAS, MARYAM PATRAS and MARK PATRAS Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF ANTIOCH, OFFICER DESMOND BITTNER, SERGEANT MITCH SCHWITTERS, OFFICER W.N. DILLARD II, OFFICER STEVEN SOARES, CHIEF OF POLICE JAMES HYDE, and DOES 1-100 Defendants. On July 27, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. at the above-entitled Court located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102, the parties appeared before Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte, United States Magistrate Judge on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and an Award for Monetary Sanctions. Petra Bruggisser and Noah Blechman appeared on behalf of Defendants. Stephen Sommers appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. After considering the submitted documents and oral argument, this Courted granted Plaintiffs' motion in part and denied the motion in part. CASE NO.: CV-09-1891 MMC ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR AN AWARD OF MONETARY SANCTIONS AS MODIFIED

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Kumin Sommers, LLP 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A.

Plaintiffs' request for Responses to Request for Production Numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5. Request for Production Number 2: Any and all audio taped conversations between Defendant Officer Dillard and Defendant

Officer Bittner regarding Section 8 Housing tenants. GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court found that Defendants had not raised an "official information" privilege as such procedure outlined by Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 668-673 (N.D.Cal. 1987). The Court weighed privacy rights of Section 8 Housing tenants against Plaintiffs' right to discover evidence regarding their individual, Monell and associated claims. The Court found the privacy rights of tenants who rent from Plaintiffs do not outweigh the Plaintiffs' right to discovery of evidence to support Plaintiffs' individual, Monell and associated claims. However, the Court found that privacy rights of Section 8 tenants who do not rent from Plaintiffs do not trump Plaintiffs' right to discovery of evidence to support Plaintiffs' individual, Monell and associated claims. The Court further found that Plaintiffs' unlimited timeframe for its request to be overbroad. DEFENDANTS ARE HEREBY ORDERED to produce all audio taped conversations between Officers Dillard and Bittner from [June 1, 2007 through October 31, 2007], regarding Section 8 Housing tenants who rent from any of the Plaintiffs. The Parties shall further meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs' remaining request pertaining to audio taped conversations between Defendant Officer Dillard and Officer Bittner regarding other Section 8 Housing tenants that did not rent from any of the Plaintiffs.. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants produce an affidavit or declaration from a responsible official(s) within the agency with personal knowledge, under oath or penalty of perjury, which affirms that the agency conducted a diligent search for the evidence subject to this request and that such evidence has been produced, and explains the steps that were taken in conducting the search.

-2Patras et. al., v. City of Antioch, et. al., United States District Court CAND Case No.: CV-09-1891 MMC [PROPOSED] ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Kumin Sommers, LLP 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Request for Production Number 3: All DOCUMENTS relating to, regarding, referring to and/or describing any and all taped conversations between Defendant Officer Dillard and Defendant Officer Bittner regarding Section 8 Housing tenants. GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court found that Defendants had not raised an "official information" privilege as such procedure outlined by Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 668-673 (N.D.Cal. 1987). The Court weighed privacy rights of Section 8 Housing tenants against Plaintiffs' right to discover evidence regarding their individual, Monell and associated claims. The Court found the privacy rights of tenants who rent from Plaintiffs do not outweigh the Plaintiffs' right to discovery of evidence to support their individual, Monell and associated claims. However, the Court found that privacy rights of Section 8 tenants who do not rent from Plaintiffs do not trump Plaintiffs' right to discovery of evidence to support their individual, Monell and associated claims. The Court further found that Plaintiffs' unlimited timeframe for its request to be overbroad. DEFENDANTS ARE HEREBY ORDERED to produce all documents related to, regarding, referring to and/or describing any and all audio taped conversations between Officers Dillard and Bittner from [June 1, 2007 through October 31, 2007], regarding Section 8 Housing tenants who rent from any of the Plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants produce an affidavit or declaration from a responsible official(s) within the agency with personal knowledge, under oath or penalty of perjury, which affirms that the agency conducted a diligent search for the evidence subject to this request and that such evidence has been produced, and explains the steps that were taken in conducting the search. Request for Production Number 4: Any and all audio taped conversations between Defendant Officer Dillard and Defendant Officer Bittner regarding any of the Plaintiffs in this case. GRANTED. Defendants asserted that all such audiotapes have been produced.
-3Patras et. al., v. City of Antioch, et. al., United States District Court CAND Case No.: CV-09-1891 MMC [PROPOSED] ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Kumin Sommers, LLP 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants produce an affidavit or declaration from a responsible official(s) within the agency with personal knowledge, under oath or penalty of perjury, which affirms that the agency conducted a diligent search for the evidence subject to this request and that such evidence has been produced, and explains the steps that were taken in conducting the search. Request for Production Number 5: All DOCUMENTS relating to, regarding, referring to and/or describing any and all taped conversations between Defendant Officer Dillard and Defendant Officer Bittner regarding any of the Plaintiffs in this case. GRANTED. Defendants asserted that all such audiotapes have been produced. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants produce an affidavit or declaration from a responsible official(s) within the agency with personal knowledge, under oath or penalty of perjury, which affirms that the agency conducted a diligent search for the evidence subject to this request and that such evidence has been produced, and explains the steps that were taken in conducting the search. B. Plaintiffs' Request for Monetary Sanctions. DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED Date:___Aug. 6, 2010________ _______________________________ Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte Magistrate of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California

-4Patras et. al., v. City of Antioch, et. al., United States District Court CAND Case No.: CV-09-1891 MMC [PROPOSED] ORDER