Hernandez v. City of Napa et al

Filing 90

ORDER by Judge Laporte granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion for Discovery (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2010)

Download PDF
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 On June 22, 2010, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery from Defendant Hallman and Production of Records Subpoenaed from the County of Napa. The Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion for failure to meet and confer. At oral argument, the parties stated that they have been working toward resolving a number of the issues raised by the Motion. However, Defendant requested that the Court conduct an in camera review of the requested law enforcement personnel and internal affairs records over which there is still disagreement. The Court finds good cause for granting Defendants' request and hereby Orders Defendants to lodge the responsive documents directly with this Court (i.e., by hand delivery) by no later than Friday, July 2, 2010 so that the Court may conduct an in camera review to determine which, if any, of the documents should be produced. The parties stated that they intend to file a stipulated protective order for the Court's review, and the Court anticipates that any such Order will protect the documents, if any, that it orders produced following its in camera review. v. CITY OF NAPA, et al., Defendants. / LUZ HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, No. C-09-02782 EDL ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL, GRANTING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW, AND ALLOWING A JOINT LETTER BRIEF REGARDING EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY CUTOFF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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 During oral argument, Plaintiff's counsel requested that the Court extend the current discovery cutoff of July 2, 2010 by thirty days. Defendants expressed opposition to this request. The Court will entertain a joint letter brief of no more than eight pages outlining the parties' respective positions regarding an extension of the discovery cutoff deadline by Friday, July 2, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 23, 2010 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge 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?