Tindle et al v. City of Daly City et al

Filing 162

ORDER Requesting Supplemental Information RE: Discovery Letters 160 and 151 . The hearing previously noticed for June 30, 2016 is continued to July 7, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 6/17/2016. (dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
SAHLEEM TINDLE, et al.,

7

Case No. 13-cv-02449-HSG (DMR)

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
CITY OF DALY CITY, et al.,

10

Defendants.

ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RE:
DISCOVERY LETTERS AND
RESETTING HEARING
Re: Dkt. Nos. 151, 160

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Yolanda Banks-Reed, no longer represented by counsel,1 filed

12
13

a unilateral discovery letter challenging Defendants’ designation of material as “Attorney’s Eyes

14

Only” (“AEO”) under the protective order and requesting that the court compel production of all

15

AEO designated material directly to the pro se Plaintiffs. [Docket No. 151.] The court ordered

16

Defendants to file a response identifying the AEO designated material and explaining the basis for

17

withholding the materials from the Plaintiffs. [Docket No. 155 at 5.]

18

In response, Defendants filed a letter explaining that “plaintiffs are not attorneys and are

19

not officers of the court subject to the same scrutiny and regulations.” Defs.’ Resp. [Docket No.

20

160] at 2. However, Defendants remained vague about their concerns and did not tether them to

21

the actual content of the AEO designated documents. Further, Defendants attempted to re-assert

22

that certain privileges and protections apply to the AEO designated material, even though the court

23

has already ruled on this issue. Sept. 15, 2015 Order [Docket No. 104]; Defs.’ AEO Log [Docket

24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs have already been represented by two firms, both of which sought and were granted the right to
withdraw. Plaintiffs were initially represented by the Law Offices of John L. Burris. [Docket No. 1.] That
firm moved to withdraw as counsel, and the court granted the motion in June 2014. [Docket Nos. 33 &
43.] The court subsequently referred plaintiffs to the Federal Pro Bono Project and Stephen Akerley of the
law firm of Dechert LLP was appointed as pro bono counsel for Plaintiffs in December 2014. [Docket
Nos. 67 & 73.] In January 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel made a motion to withdraw, which the court granted in
February 2016. [Docket Nos. 127 & 136].

1

No. 160-1]; Aug. 13, 2015 Discovery Letter [Docket No. 98]; Defs.’ Privilege Log [Docket No.

2

98-7 & 98-8].

3

Therefore, by June 24, 2016, the Defendants shall file a letter, of no more than three

4

pages, enumerating their specific concerns regarding the disclosure of the AEO designated

5

documents to the pro se Plaintiffs. They shall not incorporate by reference arguments made in any

6

other documents.

7

Plaintiffs may file two-page response to Defendants’ letter by July 1, 2016.

8

The hearing previously noticed for June 30, 2016 is continued to July 7, 2016 at 11:00

9

a.m. at the U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612. For courtroom
number and floor information, please check the Court’s on-line calendar at

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov (click “Calendars – Judges’ Weekly Calendars” link, then select

12

Judge Ryu’s calendar).

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 17, 2016
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2