Estate of Vargas v. Binnewies, 1:16-CV-01240-DAD-EPG. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190117e96
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF AUTOPSY PHOTOS ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . On January 11, 2019, the Court held an informal discovery conference regarding, among other things, the disclosure of autopsy photographs taken of Armando Vargas. The County of Mariposa (the "County") asserts that the photographs are subject to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 129 ("CCP 129"), and that the County is therefore precluded from disclosing the photographs except as allowe
Summary: ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF AUTOPSY PHOTOS ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . On January 11, 2019, the Court held an informal discovery conference regarding, among other things, the disclosure of autopsy photographs taken of Armando Vargas. The County of Mariposa (the "County") asserts that the photographs are subject to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 129 ("CCP 129"), and that the County is therefore precluded from disclosing the photographs except as allowed..
More
ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF AUTOPSY PHOTOS
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
On January 11, 2019, the Court held an informal discovery conference regarding, among other things, the disclosure of autopsy photographs taken of Armando Vargas. The County of Mariposa (the "County") asserts that the photographs are subject to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure section 129 ("CCP § 129"), and that the County is therefore precluded from disclosing the photographs except as allowed under CCP § 129.
After consideration of the positions of the parties, the undersigned ORDERS as follows:
1. Good cause is shown that the autopsy photographs meet the threshold for disclosure and should be provided in discovery.1
2. The County of Mariposa is accordingly ordered to provide copies of the autopsy photographs to Plaintiff's counsel no later five (5) court days after the signing of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court is not ruling on the admissibility of these photographs at trial.
Source: Leagle
