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)

Download PDF
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

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?