Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Charles Johnson v. A. Figueroa et al

March 14, 2012

CHARLES JOHNSON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. FIGUEROA ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Louisa S Porter United States Magistrate Judge

REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS [ECF No. 126]

ORDER FOLLOWING IN CAMERA

On February 10, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 126) and submitted Defendants' personnel records for the Court's in camera review. Federal policy regarding discovery is liberal. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, parties may obtain discovery of "any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). "The [r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. The Court has reviewed Defendants' personnel records in camera and has engaged in the balancing test required by Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292 (C.D. Cal. 1992), Hampton v. City of San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227 (S.D. Cal. 1993), and Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1987), weighing the potential benefits against the potential disadvantages of disclosure.

The parties have agreed to an "attorneys-eyes only" protective order and procedure to protect private information. Subject to the parties' "attorneys-eyes only" protective order, the Court hereby orders Defendants produce documents as follows.

A. Defendant Davis

1. Report of Performance (March 2010 - March 2011)

With regard to Defendant Davis' Report of Performance, dated March 2010 through March 2011, the Court finds that although the evaluation rates Defendant Davis on "Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting," the time period at issue is so remote that it is not relevant to the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for the production of Defendant Davis' Report of Performance is hereby DENIED.

Moreover, with regard to the Rainbow Report and training documents attached to Defendant Davis' Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for the production of the remaining pages of this document is hereby DENIED.

2. Report of Performance (March 2009 - March 2010)

As to Defendant Davis' Report of Performance, dated March 2009 through March 2010, the Court finds that although the evaluation rates Defendant Davis on "Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting," the time period at issue is so remote that it is not relevant to the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for the production of Defendant Davis' Report of Performance is hereby DENIED.

Moreover, with regard to the Rainbow Report and training documents attached to Defendant Davis' Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for the production of the remaining pages of this document is hereby DENIED.

3. Report of Performance (September 2007 - September 2008)

Defendant Davis' Report of Performance, dated September 1, 2007 through September 1, 2008, covers a time period relevant to the issues of this case and includes Davis' evaluation for "Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting." The Court further finds that Davis' training records are relevant to the issues of this case. Based thereon, Defendants shall produce pages 37-38 and 49-52 of this document on or before March 30, 2012.

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report, the Court finds this document is not relevant to the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for the production of pages 39-48 is hereby DENIED.

4. Report of Performance (March 2006 - March 2007)

Defendant Davis' Report of Performance, dated March 1, 2006 through March 1, 2007, covers a time period relevant to the issues of this case and includes Davis' evaluation for "Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting." The Court further finds that Davis' training records are relevant to the issues of this case. Based thereon, Defendants shall produce pages 53-54 and 61-63 of this document on or before March 30, 2012.

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to Davis' Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for the production of pages 64-70 is hereby DENIED.

5. Report of Performance (June 2004 - June 2005)

Defendant Davis' Report of Performance, dated June 1, 2004 through June 1, 2005, covers a time period relevant to the issues of this case and includes Davis' evaluation for "Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting." The Court further finds that Davis' training records are relevant to the issues of this case. Based thereon, Defendants shall produce pages 71-74 and 81-83 of this document on or before March 30, 2012.

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to Davis' Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for the production of pages 75-80 is hereby DENIED.

6. Report of Performance (May 2003 - August 2003)

As to Defendant Davis' Report of Performance, dated May 5, 2003 through August 22, 2003, the Court finds that it covers a time period relevant to the issues of this case and includes Davis' evaluation for "Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting." The Court further finds that Davis' training records are relevant to the issues of this case. Based thereon, Defendants shall produce page 84 on or before March 30, 2012.

B. Defendant Figueroa

1. Letter of Instruction

The Court finds Defendant A. Figueroa's Letter of Introduction concerns issues that are not relevant to this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for the production of this document is hereby DENIED.

2. Transcript

The Court finds Defendant A. Figueroa's transcript from Concorde Career College is relevant to issues of her training and knowledge. Therefore, Defendants shall produce page 88 on or before March 30, 2012. However, the Court finds the remaining pages of the transcript are not relevant to the instant action. Thus, Plaintiff's request for the production of pages 87 and 89-91 is hereby DENIED.

3. Report of Performance (November 2007 - November 2008)

Defendant Figueroa's Report of Performance, dated November 2007 through November 2008, covers a time period relevant to the issues of this case and includes Figueroa's evaluation for "Supervising, Escorting, and Transporting." The Court further finds that Figueroa's training records are relevant to the issues of this case. Based thereon, Defendants shall produce pages 92-96 on or before March 30, 2012.

However, with regard to the Rainbow Report and work safety documents attached to Figueroa's Report of Performance, the Court finds these documents are not relevant to the issues of this case. Therefore, Plaintiff's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.