Ellis v. Navarro et al

Filing 80

ORDER re 77 1/17/2012 Joint Discovery Letter filed by Nicholas Bart Ellis. Signed by Judge Beeler on 1/27/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 Oakland Division NICHOLAS BART ELLIS, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Plaintiff, v. No. C 07-05126 SBA (LB) ORDER RE 1/17/2012 JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER 13 SERGEANT A. NAVARRO, et al., [ECF No. 77] 14 15 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 16 The parties filed a joint discovery letter on January 17, 2012, addressing issues related to the 17 production of documents from the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). 1/17/2012 Joint Discovery 18 Letter, ECF No. 77 at 1. The court conducted a telephonic hearing on the record. Following the 19 hearing, the court issues this order, which resolves the disputes. 20 Plaintiff seeks all investigation reports concerning the named defendants from OIG. Id. at 2. 21 OIG construed the court’s 1/3/12 order as covering only investigation documents concerning the 22 August 14, 2006 incidents that are the subject of Plaintiff’s complaint. Id. Plaintiff claims that the 23 stipulation underlying the court’s order was not limited to the August 14, 2006 incidents and 24 requested production of all investigation reports concerning the named defendants. Id. OIG said 25 that such production would be possible, but only if the court were to issue a clarifying order 26 mandating that OIG produce all investigation reports concerning the named defendants. Id. 27 28 Defendant states that the dispute regarding the production of these documents is between Plaintiff and OIG. Id. at 3. Defendant goes on to claim that OIG has not had a full and fair C 07-05126 SBA (LB) ORDER 1 opportunity to object to the production of the documents requested and that the documents are not 2 relevant. Id. 3 Plaintiff responds to Defendant’s points by noting that Defendants did not contend that OIG is a 4 separate agency from the CDCR until December 21, 2011, which was after the parties had met, 5 conferred and stipulated to an agreement concerning production of the documents. Id. Plaintiff also 6 notes that OIG has never brought up the subpoena issue or raised any objections other than that it 7 requires a court order to release the documents. Id. And Plaintiffs assert that the OIG documents 8 concern the named defendants in this action and, accordingly, are likely to lead to the discovery of 9 admissible evidence. Id. 10 The court agrees with Plaintiff, and Defendant stated that it had no objections provided OIG was given the opportunity to object. Accordingly, the court ORDERS OIG to release all investigation 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 materials concerning the named defendants in this action under the Stipulated Protective Order As 13 Modified (Dkt. 58) and, as soon as is practicable, produce to Plaintiff for “attorneys’ eyes only” 14 review any and all non-privileged documents concerning the named defendants. However, if OIG 15 has any objections, OIG and Plaintiff must follow the discovery procedures set forth in the court’s 16 standing order, which is attached. 17 This disposes of ECF No. 77. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: January 27, 2012 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 07-05126 SBA (LB) ORDER 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?