Wettstein v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 91

ORDER VACATING SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 03/29/2013. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. CV 11-05484 CRB

JOHN WETTSTEIN,

ORDER VACATING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT HEARING

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO ET AL.,
Defendants.

/

Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all claims. See dkt. 51. The merits
of this case turn in significant part on conversations between Defendant Officer Jacob Fegan
and a confidential informant. Plaintiff John Wettstein’s opposition to the motion for
summary judgment argued, in part, that he “cannot present facts essential to justify [his]
opposition, ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), because he needs further discovery regarding (1) the
statements made by the confidential informant to Officer Fegan, and (2) allegations of
unrelated misconduct concerning Officer Fegan implicating his credibility. See dkt. 73.
Prior to the motion for summary judgment, Wettstein filed a motion to compel
discovery related to those issues, dkt. 24, which a Magistrate Judge granted in part and
denied in part, dkt. 42. Unsatisfied with the scope of the permitted discovery, Wettstein
objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, arguing that it was clearly erroneous and contrary
to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; dkt. 46. After further discovery (and without any ruling by

1

this Court on the objections), Wettstein filed a second motion to compel–this time limiting

2

the motion to information concerning the confidential informant, see dkt. 48.

3

The Court concludes that Officer Fegan’s credibility and the confidential informant’s

4

interactions with Officer Fegan are central to this case, and that the outcome of the pending

5

summary judgment motion could change if new information regarding those issues surfaced.

6

Whether Wettstein is entitled to additional discovery on those issues–and if he is, whether it

7

will result in production of relevant evidence–will not be clear until final resolution of the

8

pending discovery disputes.

9

Wettstein’s motion to compel is scheduled for a hearing on April 9, 2013, and the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Court will promptly resolve objections, if any, to the Magistrate Judge’s order following that

11

hearing. The Court will then reevaluate whether new or additional summary judgment

12

briefing is appropriate.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 29, 2013

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2011\5484\order vacating hearing.wpd

2