Ciampi v City of Palo Alto, et al
Filing
144
ORDER by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 115 Motion to Compel (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF PALO ALTO,
)
)
Defendants.
___________________________________ )
JOSEPH CIAMPI,
Case No.: C 09-02655 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL
(Re: Docket No. 115)
17
Before the court is Plaintiff Joseph Ciampi’s (“Ciampi”) motion to compel. At oral
18
argument and in Ciampi’s reply brief, Ciampi clarified that he seeks a copy of Defendant
19
Temores’ recording and a copy of Defendant Burger’s recording to be produced in the same type
20
of file that was provided to Defendants’ expert Warren Scott Page —“file copies utilizing a
21
standard Windows file copy system . . . a bit-for-bit replication of the original file” 1—containing
22
the digital watermark, a March 15, 2008 date of last modification, and the original amount of
23
24
memory. 2 Ciampi also requests the copies of Defendant Temores’ and Burger’s recordings in the
possession of Eduardo Guillarte-Medina (“Gillarte-Medina”). 3
25
26
1
27
2
28
See Warren Scott Page Decl. ¶ 8.0, 2/25/11 Pl.’s Response, Ex. 413 (Docket No. 131).
See 2/25/11 Pl.’s Response at 4:23-28, 6:14-18 (Docket No. 131); FTR Hearing Audio
Transcript, March 15, 2011 11:43:10-11:43:41 a.m.
3
See FTR Hearing Audio Transcript, March 15, 2011, 11:43:10-11:43:41 a.m.
ORDER, page 1
1
Defendants claim that in order to make a DVD that is viewable on most commercially-
2
available players, they have to convert the file into a format that alters the file size and removes
3
the watermark. If they were to copy the original file using a Windows file copy system producing
4
a bit-for-bit replication containing the watermark, Ciampi would not be able to view the video on
5
most commercially-available DVD players. Additionally, Defendants claim that “[a]ny file stored
6
in [their] database will show a different modification date as opposed to the file recorded in the
7
vehicle, by the mere act of storing the file in a database.” Ciampi, however, claims that files with
8
the original modification date do exist as evidenced by the modification date of the files held by
9
Guillarte-Medina. 4
10
Furthermore, Defendants argue in their opposition brief that they need not produce the
11
copies of the recordings being held by Guillarte-Medina because Ciampi stipulated to open the
12
sealed envelope only after he had retained an expert to analyze the files, and he has not yet
13
retained an expert. Alternatively, Defendants request that the undersigned be present when the
14
envelope is opened. At oral argument, Defendants agreed to release to Ciampi the files held by
15
Gillarte-Medina. 5
16
Defendants’ justifications for denying Ciampi access to the requested files are
17
unpersuasive. There is no dispute that the requested files are relevant. There is no dispute that
18
the requested files are not privileged. To the extent the requested files are not usable by Ciampi
19
absent the help of an expert, that is Ciampi’s problem. It does not justify denial of discovery to
20
which Ciampi is entitled. The undersigned will not oversee a production that should have taken
21
place without court intervention. Ciampi’s motion therefore is GRANTED. Defendants shall
22
produce the files listed above no later than April 29, 2011.
23
Dated: April 21, 2011
24
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
25
26
27
4
28
See 1/31/11 Pl.’s Am. Mot. Ex. 244 (Docket No. 115).
5
See FTR Hearing Audio Transcript, March 15, 2011, 11:40:45-11:41:09 a.m.
ORDER, page 2
1
Notice of this filing was automatically mailed to counsel via the court’s Electronic Case Filing
system.
2
A copy of this filing was mailed to:
3
5
Joseph Ciampi
P.O. Box 1681
Palo Alto, CA
94302
6
Dated: April 21, 2011
4
7
/s/ Chambers Staff
Chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER, page 3
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?