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.

Rodriguez v. City of Fontana

United States District Court, C.D. California

November 3, 2017

Lastenia Marizol Rodriguez
v.
City of Fontana, et al.

          Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

         Proceedings: Order Compelling Production of Records [Dkts. 66, 67, 68]

         On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff Lastenia Marizol Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Compel (“Motion”) defendant City of Fontana (“Defendant”) to produce (1) complaints of “actions/omissions of dishonesty” or use of excessive force by defendants Shane McCoy, Justin Laing, Kevin Goltara, and Nathan Weiske (the “Officer Defendants”) (Request Nos. 111 through 122); (2) notices of intention to impose discipline upon the Officer Defendants (Request Nos. 123 through 126); (3) all documents sent to the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office requesting the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff (Request No. 154); and (4) internal affairs investigation reports, witness statements, audio recordings, and video recordings regarding the investigation of any complaints of “actions/omissions of dishonesty” or uses of excessive force by the Officer Defendants (Request Nos. 158 through 205). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 50. On October 17, 2017, the Court granted in part Plaintiff's Motion, but only after an in camera review by the Court to determine relevance and balance privacy concerns. Dkt. 63.

         On October 27, 2017, Defendant lodged original responsive documents, including nine DVDs of audio and video recordings, with the Court for in camera review along with a proposed redacted version of the documents. Dkt. 66. On October 27, 2017, Defendants lodged a proposed protective order. Dkt. 67. On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff lodged a proposed protective order. Dkt. 68.

         After reviewing the originals and proposed redactions, and the proposed protective orders, the Court ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

         (1) Defendant may produce the redacted version of the documents as proposed, except Defendant shall not redact

(a) the name or address of the location of the incident where the alleged use of force occurred; and
(b) the names of victims and witnesses to the alleged use of force.

         (2) Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the redacted version of the documents that were lodged with the Court on October 27, 2017 with the revisions set forth above and the nine DVDs.

         (3) The documents and DVDs produced pursuant to this Order (“Protected Material”) are subject to the following protective order:

         (A) SCOPE

         The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

         Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial.

         (B) ...


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.