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)

Download PDF
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 (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

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?