Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Darrell Hunter v. City and County of San

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 30, 2013

DARRELL HUNTER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jacqueline Scott Corley United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF (Dkt. No. 80)

United States District Court Northern District of California

Now pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Discovery Letter Brief (Dkt. No. 80). Having considered the parties' written submission and having had the benefit of oral 20 argument, as stated on the record the Court issues the following rulings regarding Plaintiff's 21 discovery requests. 22

1.Access Database

Plaintiff seeks information from the Access database regarding excessive force 24 complaints. On January 14, 2013, the parties agreed via email correspondence which data 25 Defendants would provide Plaintiff in response to his discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 80-1 at 2-26 3.) Defendants shall produce this data by 5:00 p.m. January 30, 2013 unless Defendants' 27 counsel is required to appear for jury duty. If Defendants' counsel is required to appear, the 28 parties shall jointly call the Court on January 30, 2013 to discuss a revised schedule.

Plaintiffs' request for production of the reports regarding excessive force that

Defendants make to the California Department of Justice ("DOJ") is denied as untimely and 3 for failure to establish good cause. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to seek this information 4 earlier-prior to the close of discovery-and declined to do so. With respect to Plaintiff's 5 request for the Internal Affairs ("IA") files for excessive force complaints that were not 6 sustained, Plaintiff's request is similarly denied. The potential relevancy of these documents 7 is disproportionate to the burden of production, especially since the Access database will 8 provide Plaintiff with statistics. 9

11 not seek to take his deposition or a deposition of the person most knowledgeable regarding the 12

2.Depositions of Lieutenant Flewellen and former Undersheriff Jan Dempsey

Plaintiff's request to depose Lieutenant Flewellen is denied as untimely. Plaintiff did

IA investigation process prior to the close of discovery. In contrast, Plaintiff did seek to take

United States District Court Northern District of California

former Undersheriff Dempsey's deposition and the Court granted Plaintiff leave to depose her 14 on September 13, 2012. Accordingly, Defendants shall produce Undersheriff Dempsey for a 15 one hour deposition by mid-March 2013. 16

18 department during the Skelly hearing relating to the claims herein. Although Defendants 19 should have listed these documents on a privilege log, their failure to do so does not constitute 20 a waiver as Defendants' counsel informed Plaintiff in writing of the documents existence and 21 privileged nature. 22

24 deposition by the end of February 2013. 25

27 surveillance at the San Francisco County Jail; however, the time to compel responses to 28 written discovery requests has long passed.

3.Skelly Hearing Notes

Plaintiff is not entitled to copies of notes taken by the attorney for the Sheriff's

4.Deposition of Deputy Mattison

Deputy Mattison has returned to active duty. Defendants shall make her available for

5.Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition regarding video surveillance

Plaintiff is entitled to take the deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) designee regarding video

6.West Coast Legal Documents

Defendants shall make available to Plaintiff the documents provided by West Coast

Legal as there is no other way for Plaintiff to obtain these documents. Plaintiff shall copy the 4 documents at his expense. 5

7.Scheduling

Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is due February 5,

2013; Defendants' reply is due February 19, 2013. The hearing on the motion remains 8 scheduled for February 28, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. 9

This Order disposes of Docket No. 80.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Northern District of California

20130130

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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