Sandoval et al v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 158

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on July 15, 2014. (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12 RAFAEL MATEOS-SANDOVAL, and
others,

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15

Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC)

Re: Dkt. Nos. 152, 157

v.
COUNTY OF SONOMA, and others,

16

Defendants.

17
18
The parties submitted a joint letter seeking clarification of the Court‟s earlier order

19

20 compelling the production of limited discovery. The Court answers the parties‟ concerns in
21 turn.
22

1. “[T]he parties believe the Court intended to require the Santa Rosa Defendants

23

to produce records regarding vehicle impounds occurring during the month in

24

which the Santa Rosa Police Department had impounded Plaintiff Ruiz‟s

25

vehicle (September 2011) in response to his request for additional documents

26

(Dkt. No. 139).” CORRECT.

27

2. “Did the Court intend to require Sheriff Freitas to produce records regarding

28

vehicle impounds that occurred during the month the Sheriff‟s Office had
Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC)
ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

1

impounded Plaintiff Sandoval‟s vehicle (January 2011)?” CORRECT.

2

3. “Did the Court intend to refer to that portion of the CHP 180 form referred to

3

as the „Vehicle Report‟ (see Exhibit C to the Declaration of Sheriff Freitas,

4

Dkt. No. 156, p. 14), or did the Court intend to refer to the arrest report, also

5

called an „Incident Report‟ (see Exhibit D to the Declaration of Sheriff Freitas,

6

Dkt. No. 156, pp. 16-20)?” DEFENDANTS MUST PRODUCE BOTH THE

7

CHP 180 FORMS AND THE INCIDENT REPORTS.

8

4. “Per the Scheduling Order, the tow company‟s response to the OSC

9

Application was due July 11, 2014, and a hearing date is set for July 30, 2014.

10

Did the Court intend to vacate that Scheduling Order? The parties believe that

11

vacating the Scheduling Order would be appropriate given the stay.” YES,

12

THE HEARING AND RELATED DEADLINES ARE VACATED.

13
14

5. The parties request permission to present the proposed protective order to the
Court in the next seven days. GRANTED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Date: July 15, 2014

17

_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC)
ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

2