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