Stevenson v. City and County of San Francisco, CV 11 4950 MMC. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20150825651
Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 24, 2015
Summary: [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE: (1) PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, LESSER SANCTIONS, AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR INTENTIONAL SPOLIATION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE; AND (2) CERTAIN EXHIBITS, AND PORTIONS OF CERTAIN EXHIBITS, UNDER SEAL MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . ORDER Plaintiffs' motion to file documents under seal in connection with their spoliation motion came before the court at 9:00 a.m. on Se
Summary: [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE: (1) PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, LESSER SANCTIONS, AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR INTENTIONAL SPOLIATION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE; AND (2) CERTAIN EXHIBITS, AND PORTIONS OF CERTAIN EXHIBITS, UNDER SEAL MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . ORDER Plaintiffs' motion to file documents under seal in connection with their spoliation motion came before the court at 9:00 a.m. on Sep..
More
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE: (1) PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, LESSER SANCTIONS, AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR INTENTIONAL SPOLIATION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE; AND (2) CERTAIN EXHIBITS, AND PORTIONS OF CERTAIN EXHIBITS, UNDER SEAL
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
ORDER
Plaintiffs' motion to file documents under seal in connection with their spoliation motion came before the court at 9:00 a.m. on September 11, 2015, in Courtroom 7 of the above captioned Court before the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney. Murlene J. Randle appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff and Deputy City Attorney Jonathan Rolnick appeared on behalf of the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion pursuant Local Rule 79-5(e). The Defendants filed a Declaration under subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) on August 14, 2015, as required by Rule 79-5(e), establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.
GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN FOUND, pursuant to the Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) Declaration, and any oral argument taken, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' administrative motion for leave to file portions of Plaintiffs' motion for terminating sanctions, or, in the alterative, lesser sanctions, against Defendants for their intentional spoliation of relevant evidence (Exhibit 1), certain exhibit, and portions of certain exhibits, is GRANTED as follows:
Exhibit 2 Portions of the Plaintiffs' Granted: x
Motion for Terminating
Sanctions, or, In The Denied: _____
Alternative, Lesser Sanctions,
Against the Defendants for
Their Intentional Spoliation of
Relevant Evidence
Exhibit 3 Excerpts of David B. Johnson's Granted: x
January 21, 2015 Deposition
Transcript Denied: _____
Exhibit 4 The Rater Manual Granted: x
Staff
PUBLIC SAFETY TEAM Denied: _____
H-50 Assistant Chief
Fire Scene Simulation Exercise
September 2010,"
Exhibit 5 The (1) transcript of candidate Granted: x
5001's oral responses to each
scenario of the Fire Scene Denied: _____
Simulation Exercise; (2) the
Answer Keys for each Fire
Scene Simulation Exercise
scenario; and (3) the Record of
Scores of candidate 5001 for
each Fire Scene Simulation
Exercise scenario
Exhibit 6 The (1) the documentation Granted: x
portion of candidate 5001 for
the Supervision/Training Denied: _____
Performance Exercise, (2) a
blank Supervision/Training
Performance Exercise Scoring
Key, and (3) the Supervision/
Training Performance Exercise
Record of Scores completed by
the raters for candidate 5001
Exhibit 7 The Rebuttal Declaration of Granted: x
Arthur Gutman, Ph.D., of
Expert Report by Cristina Denied: _____
Banks, Ph.D
Exhibit 8 Expert Report of Arthur Granted: x
Gutman, Ph.D. (Validity)
Denied: _____
Exhibit 9 Portions of Plaintiff Kevin D. Granted: x
Taylor's Amended Response To
Defendant's Special Denied: _____
Interrogatories, Set Three
Exhibit 10 Portions of Plaintiffs' Analysis Granted: x
and Review Regarding The
2010 H-50 Assistant Chief Denied: _____
Promotional Examination
Exhibit 11 A revised section of the Granted: x
Plaintiffs' Analysis and Review
Regarding The 2010 H-50 Denied: _____
Assistant Chief Promotional
Examination related to the
"Initial Response:
Communications" dimension of
the High-Rise Scoring Key, and
associate pie charts for the
High-Rise section and pie chart
that reflects the incorrect
response anchors for all four fire
scene scenarios
Exhibit 12 Excerpts of Cristina G. Bank's, Granted: x
Ph.D., June 29, 2015 Deposition
Transcript Denied: _____
Exhibit 13 Excerpts of Chief Patrick Granted: x
Gardner's January 13, 2015
Deposition Transcript and Denied: _____
exhibits one, two, three, and
twelve
Exhibit 14 Excerpts of Chief Arthur Granted: x
Kenney's December 17, 2014
Deposition Transcript and Denied: _____
exhibits four & six
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
