Percelle v. Pearson et al
Filing
106
ORDER re dkts. 78 , 90 , 94 , & 97 by Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
STEVE DALE PERCELLE,
Plaintiff,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
No. C -12-05343(EDL)
ORDER RE: DKTS. 78, 90, 94, & 97
v.
S. PEARSON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
13
14
As stated in the July 8, 2014 hearing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. 90) is GRANTED
15
in part and DENIED in part. The Court DENIES Requests 1-7 and 10-13. Pursuant to Requests 8-9,
16
the Court orders Defendant Pearson to produce to Plaintiff a redacted version of the gang validation
17
manual designated “CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY.”
18
Also as stated in the July 8, 2014 hearing, the Court orders further briefing from the Parties
19
regarding Defendants’ motion to maintain redactions (Dkts. 78, 94) in light of the Court’s indication
20
that if it were to order any further disclosures of currently redacted information, it would do so on an
21
attorney’s eyes only basis. By July 22, 2014, Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve on Defendants a
22
declaration under seal detailing the information he alleges he knows regarding the confidential
23
informant. By July 22, 2014, Defendants are ordered to file a letter with the Court outlining how
24
courts have previously adjudicated requests for the names of confidential informants; Defendants
25
should note if any Court has ordered the disclosure of the name of or other identifying information
26
about a confidential informant subject to an attorney’s eyes only protection order. Also by July 22,
27
2014, Defendants are ordered to file a detailed response to the objections raised in Plaintiff’s May
28
25, 2014 letter (Dkt. 94-1 at 2-3.) As discussed and agreed to at the hearing, Defendants are further
ordered to produce to Plaintiff the names of the author and reviewer of the debriefing memo
1
designated “CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY.”
2
Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file moving papers in excess of 25 pages (Dkt. 97) is
3
hereby GRANTED. Henceforth, however, all parties are must comply with the requirements of
4
Local Rule 7.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: July 10, 2014
9
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Chief Magistrate Judge
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
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?