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)

Download PDF
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

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?