Cefalu v. Holder

Filing 49

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS re 44 First Discovery Letter Brief (Issue No. 2, refiled per Dkt. 42). Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on November 26, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13

VINCENT CEFALU,
Plaintiff,
v.

14
15
16

Case No. 12-0303 TEH (JSC)
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
(DKT. NO. 44)

ERIC HOLDER,
Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff, a former employee of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(“ATF”) makes age and disability discrimination claims, as well as claims alleging retaliation.
Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel the production of documents.
(Dkt. No. 44.) Having carefully considered the parties’ written arguments, the Court
concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS Defendant’s
motion in part and DENIES Defendant’s motion in part as set forth below.
A. Plaintiff’s medical records
Within one week of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with
signed releases for Defendant’s subpoena of Plaintiff’s medical records.

1

B. Plaintiff’s web-based writings about his employment

2

Plaintiff represents that he has produced all responsive documents in his possession so

3

it is unclear to the Court as to what documents Defendant seeks. It may be that Defendant

4

seeks some authentication from Plaintiff as to which web postings he wrote, authentication

5

which would come from Plaintiff actually reviewing his web postings and providing them to

6

Defendant. If so, the parties should meet and confer on the best method for providing

7

Defendant with such identification and authentication. For example, Plaintiff could provide

8

Defendant with a stipulation of all of his postings and their dates.

9

C. Plaintiff’s manuscripts about his employment

10

Plaintiff represents that he has produced all responsive documents in his possession.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Plaintiff, of course, is required to produce all documents in his possession, custody or control,

12

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1), and Plaintiff does not represent that additional responsive

13

documents are not in his custody or control. To the extent they are, Plaintiff must produce

14

them within seven days of this Order.

15

D. Plaintiff’s email correspondence

16

Plaintiff again contends that he has produced all responsive documents; in other words,

17

he is representing that he does not have any responsive personal email correspondence with

18

the individuals on his Rule 26 witness list for which he has not produced any email. In the

19

absence of any evidence that Plaintiff’s representation is untrue, there is nothing for the Court

20

to order.

21

E. Plaintiff’s Facebook page

22

Defendant apparently seeks all of Plaintiff’s postings on his Facebook page, including

23

any photographs and videos. Plaintiff responds that Plaintiff’s Facebook page is entirely

24

public and is therefore equally accessible to Defendant. Defendant does not address this

25

contention. As it is unclear what Defendant seeks in light of Plaintiff’s representation, the

26

motion to compel Plaintiff’s Facebook postings is denied.

27
28

This Order disposes of Docket No. 44.

2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 26, 2012
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

3