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.

Amatrone v. Champion

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 10, 2017

ROBERT AMATRONE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
RANDY CHAMPION, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL RE: ECF NO. 167

          JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge

         Before the Court is Randy Champion and Devon Bell's (“Defendants”) motion to compel. ECF No. 167. The Court will grant the motion.[1]

         I. BACKGROUND

         This is not the parties' first discovery dispute. Earlier this year, Defendants moved to compel Plaintiffs' 1) initial disclosures, 2) interrogatory verifications, 3) supplemental responses to Defendants' Document Demands, Nos. 2 and 3, and 4) Plaintiffs' depositions. ECF Nos. 154, 158. The Court granted the motions in their entirety. ECF No. 164.

         On March 24, 2017, Defendants filed a third motion to compel. ECF No. 167. This motion seeks to compel the following items:

• video footage Plaintiffs claim to have in their possession captured by their home surveillance system, as well as photos, which allegedly show Defendants damaging property and planting evidence at Plaintiffs' residence in March 2014 and which Plaintiffs claim that they intend to rely on at trial;
• an amended response to Defendant Randy Champion's First Set of Document Demands, Demand No. 1;
• responses to Defendant Devon Bell's First Set of Document Demands;
• supplemental responses to a number of Plaintiffs' responses to Devon Bell's First Set of Interrogatories; and
• verifications in support of Plaintiffs' interrogatory responses to Defendant Devon Bell's First Set of Interrogatories.

Id at 3. Because fact discovery closes on April 22, 2017, the Court issued an order shortening time on this motion. ECF No. 170. Plaintiffs filed an “Objection” to Defendants' motion on April 4, 2017. ECF No. 171.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Videos

         During their depositions, Plaintiffs Robert and Nick Amatrone testified that they possessed video footage from their home surveillance system that “allegedly shows Defendants damaging property and planting evidence during the search in March 2014” that is at issue in this case. ECF No. 167 at 4; ECF No. 167-2 at 23-56 (excerpts of Plaintiffs' depositions). Plaintiff Nick Amatrone stated that he intended to rely on the videos at trial. ECF No. 167-2 at 45. In response to Defendants' demand that Plaintiffs produce the videos, Plaintiffs mailed Defendants two compact discs. “One disc, labeled 'exterior camera view', appears to contain some video footage recorded from outside of the home. One disc, labeled 'interior camera view', was received cracked in half. Any data on the disc could not be read.” ECF No. 167 at 3. Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have not responded to their subsequent requests for undamaged discs. Id. ...


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.