Martinez v. City of Pittsburg et al

Filing 34

ORDER Re: the parties' discovery dispute concerning Plaintiff's rap sheet re: [29-1]. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 12/22/2011. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
HILARIO MARTINEZ,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

13
CITY OF PITTSBURG, et al.

No. C 11-01017 LB
ORDER RE: THE PARTIES’
DISCOVERY DISPUTE
CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S RAP
SHEET

14
15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
Plaintiff Hilario Martinez filed this action against the City of Pittsburgh, its police department,

17

and several of its police officers for violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983, malicious prosecution, and

18

conspiracy. Complaint, ECF No. 1.1 The gist of the complaint is that Plaintiff was improperly

19

arrested, charged, and prosecuted in violation of his constitutional rights. He went to trial and was

20

acquitted. See People v. Martinez, Contra Costa County Case No. 162025-1 (the “Underlying

21

Criminal Action”).

22

On December 8, 2011, the parties filed a stipulated protective order, which this court

23

subsequently approved. Stipulated Protective Order (“SPO”), ECF No. 29; 12/21/2011 Order, ECF

24

No. 33.

25

At the same time, Plaintiff also alerted this court to a discovery dispute. Plaintiff’s Letter, ECF

26

No. 29-1. Apparently, Plaintiff requested from the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 11-01017 LB

1

(the “DA’s Office”) a copy of the prosecution’s case file in the Underlying Criminal Action, and the

2

DA’s Office has produced most of it. But as Plaintiff describes, he and the DA’s Office “have not

3

reached an agreement as to whether or not [Plaintiff’s] RAP sheet[, which is included in the case

4

file,] is required to be produced to the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter.” Plaintiff’s Letter,

5

ECF No. 29-1 at 1. The DA’s Office has so far refused to turn it over, because, it says, “California

6

Penal Code §[§] 11142 and 13300 make it a misdemeanor to furnish such information to an

7

unauthorized person.” DA Office’s Letter to the Court at 1. In lieu of briefing the issue, the parties

8

“agreed to leave the issue up to [the court] for ultimate resolution,” Plaintiff’s Letter, ECF No. 29-1

9

at 1, and the DA’s Office simply submitted Plaintiff’s rap sheet to the court for in camera

10

The statutes cited by the DA’s Office do state that, in some circumstances, it is a misdemeanor to

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

inspection, DA Office’s Letter to the Court.

provide a certain criminal history information to unauthorized persons. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code §

13

11142 (“Any person authorized by law to receive a record or information obtained from a record

14

who knowingly furnishes the record or information to a person who is not authorized by law to

15

receive the record or information is guilty of a misdemeanor.”). But this is not the case in all

16

circumstances. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code § 13300(b)(1)-(17) (providing that a local agency shall

17

furnish local summary criminal history information to numerous listed entities and individuals in

18

certain circumstances). And the court observes that a person may have access to his own criminal

19

history information. See Office of the Attorney General, “Criminal Records – Request Your Own,”

20

http://www.ag.ca.gov/fingerprints/security.php (last accessed Dec. 21, 2011). Without any briefing

21

from the parties, the court cannot resolve the parties’ dispute at this time. Thus, to the extent they

22

are unable to resolve this dispute on their own (now that a protective order is in place), they may

23

file, no later than December 30, 2011, a joint letter that sets out each issue in a separate section that

24

includes each parties’ position (with appropriate legal authority) and proposed compromise. The

25

court then will review the letter and decide whether future proceedings are necessary.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: December 22, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

28

C 11-01017 LB

2