Halbleib v. Coppage et al

Filing 68

ORDER Re In Camera Review. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/10/2009. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. CHP OFFICER DALE COPPAGE, Defendant. ___________________________________/ JOSEPH HALBLEIB, Plaintiff, ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW (Docket Nos. 38, 62) No. C-08-2657 CW (EMC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Previously, the Court ordered Defendant to provide certain documents for in camera review. See Docket No. 62 (order, filed on 7/6/2009). Defendant has now submitted those documents and, having reviewed those documents, the Court orders that they be produced to Plaintiff pursuant to the protective order in this case. I. DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendant submitted for in camera review two categories of documents. See Docket No. 64 (Hamilton Decl. ¶¶ 3). However, the Court's order of July 6, 2009, made clear that it would be conducting an in camera review for the first category of documents only. Defendant was required to produce the second category of documents to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court orders that, if Defendant has not already done so, the second category of documents shall immediately be produced to Plaintiff, subject to the protective order. See Docket No. 64 (Hamilton Decl. ¶ 3) (Bates Nos. 136-43, 619-88, and 718-73).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

As to the first category of documents, they relate to a November 2007 training incident. See Docket No. 64 (Hamilton Decl. ¶ 3) (Bates Nos. 296-483). The Court has reviewed those documents and concludes that the documents should be produced in their entirety. Without making any conclusion as to ultimate admissibility, the incident is relevant for discovery purposes because it relates to Defendant's care and conduct in motorcycle riding as well as his veracity. Moreover, the documents at issue are relevant because they reference other incidents which are relevant to the case at bar -- e.g., interim reporting for substandard performance (from December 2006 to March 2007); a collision that took place on July 29, 2006; and a collision that took place on September 24, 2007. Accordingly, consistent with Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. Cal. 1995), the Court orders that the documents be produced to Plaintiff subject to the protective order. Such documents should be produced within ten days of the date of this order. This order disposes of Docket Nos. 38 and 62.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2009 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge

2