SMITH v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, CV 10-4874 (MKB)(ETB). (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. New York
Number: infdco20130711c42
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2013
Summary: ORDER E. THOMAS BOYLE, Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to a follow-up conference held on July 10, 2013 — addressing issues unresolved at the telephone conference held on July 8, 2013 ( see Order dated July 8, 2013) — the following additional rulings apply: 1. With respect to the other "similarly withheld and/or redacted items" that the County agreed "to reevaluate" ( see Order dated July 8, 2013) based on the plaintiff's Monell theory of liability in this action, the County is directed to pro
Summary: ORDER E. THOMAS BOYLE, Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to a follow-up conference held on July 10, 2013 — addressing issues unresolved at the telephone conference held on July 8, 2013 ( see Order dated July 8, 2013) — the following additional rulings apply: 1. With respect to the other "similarly withheld and/or redacted items" that the County agreed "to reevaluate" ( see Order dated July 8, 2013) based on the plaintiff's Monell theory of liability in this action, the County is directed to prod..
More
ORDER
E. THOMAS BOYLE, Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to a follow-up conference held on July 10, 2013 — addressing issues unresolved at the telephone conference held on July 8, 2013 (see Order dated July 8, 2013) — the following additional rulings apply:
1. With respect to the other "similarly withheld and/or redacted items" that the County agreed "to reevaluate" (see Order dated July 8, 2013) based on the plaintiff's Monell theory of liability in this action, the County is directed to produce these documents without redaction as to the name and any contact information of the complainant or any witness(es) therein identified. It is understood that these documents will be produced within fourteen (14) days and that the identity of non-targeted police officers may be redacted, without prejudice to any further application for production and/or a protective order.
2. The County is directed to produce for in camera inspection, and the Court has received today, the items designated as Numbers 1, 3 and 8 on the County's privilege log. Pursuant to the conference today, any other documents are no longer at issue in plaintiff's request for production.
SO ORDERED:
Source: Leagle
