Hunter v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 82

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF (Dkt. No. 80). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 1/30/2013. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

DARRELL HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-4911 JSC
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF (Dkt. No. 80)

13
14
15
16

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Now pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Discovery Letter Brief (Dkt. No.

19

80). Having considered the parties’ written submission and having had the benefit of oral

20

argument, as stated on the record the Court issues the following rulings regarding Plaintiff’s

21

discovery requests.

22
23

1. Access Database
Plaintiff seeks information from the Access database regarding excessive force

24

complaints. On January 14, 2013, the parties agreed via email correspondence which data

25

Defendants would provide Plaintiff in response to his discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 80-1 at 2-

26

3.) Defendants shall produce this data by 5:00 p.m. January 30, 2013 unless Defendants’

27

counsel is required to appear for jury duty. If Defendants’ counsel is required to appear, the

28

parties shall jointly call the Court on January 30, 2013 to discuss a revised schedule.

1

Plaintiffs’ request for production of the reports regarding excessive force that

2

Defendants make to the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is denied as untimely and

3

for failure to establish good cause. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to seek this information

4

earlier—prior to the close of discovery—and declined to do so. With respect to Plaintiff’s

5

request for the Internal Affairs (“IA”) files for excessive force complaints that were not

6

sustained, Plaintiff’s request is similarly denied. The potential relevancy of these documents

7

is disproportionate to the burden of production, especially since the Access database will

8

provide Plaintiff with statistics.

9
10

2. Depositions of Lieutenant Flewellen and former Undersheriff Jan Dempsey
Plaintiff’s request to depose Lieutenant Flewellen is denied as untimely. Plaintiff did

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

not seek to take his deposition or a deposition of the person most knowledgeable regarding the

12

IA investigation process prior to the close of discovery. In contrast, Plaintiff did seek to take

13

former Undersheriff Dempsey’s deposition and the Court granted Plaintiff leave to depose her

14

on September 13, 2012. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce Undersheriff Dempsey for a

15

one hour deposition by mid-March 2013.

16
17

3. Skelly Hearing Notes
Plaintiff is not entitled to copies of notes taken by the attorney for the Sheriff’s

18

department during the Skelly hearing relating to the claims herein. Although Defendants

19

should have listed these documents on a privilege log, their failure to do so does not constitute

20

a waiver as Defendants’ counsel informed Plaintiff in writing of the documents existence and

21

privileged nature.

22
23
24
25
26

4. Deposition of Deputy Mattison
Deputy Mattison has returned to active duty. Defendants shall make her available for
deposition by the end of February 2013.
5. Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition regarding video surveillance
Plaintiff is entitled to take the deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) designee regarding video

27

surveillance at the San Francisco County Jail; however, the time to compel responses to

28

written discovery requests has long passed.

2

1
2

6. West Coast Legal Documents
Defendants shall make available to Plaintiff the documents provided by West Coast

3

Legal as there is no other way for Plaintiff to obtain these documents. Plaintiff shall copy the

4

documents at his expense.

5
6

7. Scheduling
Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is due February 5,

7

2013; Defendants’ reply is due February 19, 2013. The hearing on the motion remains

8

scheduled for February 28, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

9

This Order disposes of Docket No. 80.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

Dated: January 30, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

3