A.C. v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 70

ORDER Re 66 . Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 4/20/2015. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

A.C.,

Case No. 13-cv-03276-HSG
Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER

9
10

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 66

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Having read and considered the parties’ joint discovery letter dated March 17, 2015 and

13

the materials submitted by Defendants on March 24, 2015 for in camera review, the Court

14

ORDERS as follows:

15

1. By April 24, 2015, each party shall submit a supplemental discovery letter of no more

16

than three pages addressing the following question: under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) and

17

Ninth Circuit cases interpreting that rule, can work product protection apply to material

18

that was created in anticipation of litigation but not created at the request or direction

19

of an attorney or an attorney’s agent?

20

2. Plaintiff’s letter must include any asserted basis for a showing of substantial need for

21

discovery of the April 15, 2012 memorandum at issue, if the Court finds that the

22

memorandum is entitled to work product protection.

23

3. Defendant’s letter must attach and discuss any City of Santa Clara policies or

24

procedures bearing on the question of whether the City’s investigative work in

25

response to administrative claims like Mr. Weaver’s March 23, 2012 claim is

26

conducted “in anticipation of litigation.”

27

4. The Declaration of Rodger Hayton quoted by Defendants in the discovery letter does

28

not provide a sufficient factual basis for the Court to resolve the issues presented. By

1

April 24, 2015, Defendants shall submit for in camera review declarations containing

2

firsthand knowledge, along with any other documentary evidence, sufficient to

3

establish the following facts:

4

a. the date the administrative claim filed by James Weaver on March 23, 2012
was resolved by the City of Santa Clara;

5
6

b. the identity of any person who directed or asked Officer Crescini to draft the

7

April 15, 2012 memorandum, and the specific content of any such

8

communication;
c. the identity of any attorney (including outside counsel and attorneys at the City

10

Attorney’s Office) involved in the preparation, review or transmission of the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

April 15, 2012 memorandum. For each identified attorney, the materials must

12

describe the details and dates of such involvement, including the specific

13

content of any communications with the Santa Clara Police Department or

14

others regarding the April 15, 2012 memorandum.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/20/2015

17
________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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