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)

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