Johnson v. United States of America et al

Filing 253

Order by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas denying 224 Motion to Compel. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON, Case No. 13-cv-02405-JD (NJV) Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL v. 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 224 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 14 Pending before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to have the Deputy City Attorney Newton 15 Oldfather Compelled to Produce the Requested Documents, Photo Disk, Employee names, and 16 Surveillance Tape Requested on a Court Ordered Subpoena Dated September 11, 2015. (Doc. 17 224.) The court issued an order on January 26, 2016, setting the schedule for the filing of the 18 response to the motion, and the reply to the response. (Doc. 247.) The City and County of San 19 Francisco ("the City") responded to Plaintiff's Motion on January 29, 2016, providing a supporting 20 declaration. (Doc. 249.) Plaintiff has not filed a reply and the time to do so has expired. 21 The subpoena requested four categories of records: (1) documents related to Johnson’s 22 January 30, 2012 booking and release;(2) January 30, 2012 booking photos;(3) January 30, 2012 23 video footage from the County Jail; and (4) names of all city employees present on January 30, 24 2012. Plaintiff alleges in his Motion that the City has produced only two photographs. 25 1. Category: The Booking and Release Documents from January 30, 2012 26 The City asserts that it has identified and produced (1) Johnson’s Citation, (2) Johnson’s 27 Booking Card, (3) Johnson’s Housing Card, and (4) Johnson’s Inmate Housing History Report. 28 The City states that it has also requested Johnson’s classification records and hopes to obtain these 1 records during the next two weeks if they exist. 2 2. Category: Booking Photos from January 30, 2012 3 The City asserts that is has produced eight different photographs of Johnson, including the 4 photograph from January 30, 2012. Although Plaintiff apparently believes that additional 5 photographs exist or that the photographs have been altered, the City asserts that after a reasonably 6 diligent search, the City does not know of any other photographs of Mr. Johnson. 7 3. Category: Video Footage from January 30, 2012 8 9 The City asserts that is does not have any video footage from January 30, 2012. It explains that the county jail video systems have limited storage capacity, and the system is a first in, first out system, which means the footage records over itself if not specifically downloaded to an 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 external hard drive within a certain number of days. The City asserts that after a reasonably 12 diligent search, the City does not have any video of County Jail 1 from January 30, 2012. 13 4. Category: City Employees Present on January 30, 2012 14 The City asserts that it has produced a list of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputies who 15 were on duty on January 30, 2012 at County Jail 1 on the day watch shift, at 13:55 hours, which is 16 when the City believes Johnson was processed. 17 18 Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the City has complied with its duty to respond to Plaintiff's subpoena. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is HEREBY DENIED. 19 20 21 22 23 Dated: February 26, 2016 ______________________________________ NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge 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?