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)

Download PDF
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

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?