Reyes v. City of Fresno, 1:13-cv-00418-LJO-SKO. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150116d32
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DATES CONCERNING RECORDS ORDERED TO BE PRODUCED BY DEFENDANT CITY OF FRESNO (DOC. 79) SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge. On November 20, 2014, this Court ordered the City of Fresno to produce the following documents to Plaintiffs by January 9, 2015: 1. Internal affairs documents pertaining to complaints and discipline records of Officer Avila. To the extent there is an applicable privilege asserted with regard to any documents, an updated privilege log will b
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DATES CONCERNING RECORDS ORDERED TO BE PRODUCED BY DEFENDANT CITY OF FRESNO (DOC. 79) SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge. On November 20, 2014, this Court ordered the City of Fresno to produce the following documents to Plaintiffs by January 9, 2015: 1. Internal affairs documents pertaining to complaints and discipline records of Officer Avila. To the extent there is an applicable privilege asserted with regard to any documents, an updated privilege log will be..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DATES CONCERNING RECORDS ORDERED TO BE PRODUCED BY DEFENDANT CITY OF FRESNO (DOC. 79)
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
On November 20, 2014, this Court ordered the City of Fresno to produce the following documents to Plaintiffs by January 9, 2015:
1. Internal affairs documents pertaining to complaints and discipline records of Officer Avila. To the extent there is an applicable privilege asserted with regard to any documents, an updated privilege log will be produced;
2. Documents such as fitness for duty examinations and psychological evaluations of Officer Avila that are in the City Defendants' possession pertaining to prior shootings in which Officer Avila was involved — including the June 2012 shooting which is the subject of this suit. This document production shall not include documents regarding any shooting subsequent to June 2012 in which Officer Avila was involved; and
3. Disability records or claims of Officer Avila in the possession of the City — including the June 2012 shooting which is the subject of this suit. This document production shall not include documents regarding any shooting subsequent to June 2012 in which Officer Avila was involved.
The Fresno Defendants produced voluminous responsive documents to Plaintiffs on January 9, 2015, and Plaintiffs received them on January 12, 2015. Defendants are still searching for more responsive documents, and the parties agree that an updated privilege log, if any, may be produced with the final production of documents. Plaintiffs' counsel will be in an eight week wrongful death trial, M.H. v. County of Alameda, et al., N.D. Ca. Case No. C-11-2868 JST (LB), and do not believe they will have time to complete their review within one week of the final production of documents. Plaintiffs' counsel could complete their review and submit the joint status report to the Court within three weeks of Defendants' final production of documents.
The parties therefore stipulate and agree:
1) Defendants may complete their production of documents and produce any privilege log to Plaintiffs no later than February 6, 2015;
2) Plaintiffs will complete their review of the documents and the parties will submit the joint status report to the Court no later than February 27, 2015;
3) The Court shall set a further hearing after reviewing the parties' joint status report. The Court in the M.H. case does not have trial on Fridays, so Plaintiffs' counsel would be available for a hearing any Friday in March 2015.
ORDER
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants may complete their production of documents and produce any privilege log to Plaintiffs no later than February 6, 2015;
2. Plaintiffs shall complete their review of the documents, and the parties will submit the joint status report to the Court no later than February 27, 2015; and
3. The Court shall set a further hearing after reviewing the parties' joint status report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
