Sweets v. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors et al

Filing 83

BRIEFING ORDER and TENTATIVE RULING. Signed by Judge James Larson on 1/12/09. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Harleem Sweets, Plaintiff, v. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, et al., Defendants. ________________________________/

No. C 06-7964 CW (JL) BRIEFING ORDER AND TENTATIVE RULING (Re Docket # 64)

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Introduction All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Claudia Wilken) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b). This Court received Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents and sanctions (Docket # 64), filed December 9, 2008. The discovery cut-off in this case was September 30, 2008. Jury trial is set for January 29, 2009. The Pretrial Conference is scheduled for January 13. The Court finds this matter suitable for decision without a hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Plaintiff's Motion Plaintiff asks this Court to order Defendants to produce to him the names, PFN, and addresses of the 20 inmates who were housed in Q Pod on August 13, 2007, with Plaintiff, while he was confined in the Contra Costa County Jail. He contends that these inmates' testimony or affidavits are important to his claim that Deputy Welch used excessive force

C-06-7964 BRIEFING ORDER

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

against him, since they observed the deputy beating him and dragging him out of his cell. Plaintiff alleges that he requested this information from Welch's attorney but that his requests have been ignored. Analysis and Conclusion Ordinarily, the long-ago passage of the discovery cut-off would lead the Court to deny Plaintiff's motion as untimely. However, the identify and contact information for potential witnesses is the type of information which is not part of the formal discovery process, but should be produced prior to the commencement of formal discovery, as part of a party's initial disclosures, pursuant to Rule (a)(1)(A)(I), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court has ordered the parties to provide their witness lists by ten days prior to the pretrial conference, which is scheduled for January 13. (Order e-filed November 24, 2008 at Docket # 63). Since the witness lists were due January 3, Defendants may have deprived Plaintiff of his ability to comply with the district court's pretrial preparation order. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Defendants shall by close of business January 14 file their response stating why this Court should not order them immediately to produce the requested information to Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 12, 2009 __________________________________ JAMES LARSON Chief Magistrate Judge
G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIV-REF\06-7964\Brief - 64.wpd

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

C-06-7964 BRIEFING ORDER

Page 2 of 2