ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO MAY 2, 2019 AT 8:30 A.M.

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER AND FILE SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT STATEMENT (ECF No. 95)

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

On March 22, 2019, Defendants Hanford Police Department ("HPD"), Larry Leeds ("Leeds"), Patrick Jurdon ("Jurdon"), Dale Williams ("Williams"), Christifer Barker ("Barker"), and Jarred Cotta ("Cotta") (collectively, the "Defendants")1 filed a motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 89.) The Court held a hearing on the motion on April 10, 2019. (ECF No. 98.) At the hearing, attorney Morgan E. Ricketts appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, attorney Mario U. Zamora appeared on behalf of Defendants Larry Leeds and the city of Hanford, and attorney Chad Couchot appeared on behalf of Defendant Naphcare.

During the hearing, the Court determined that the briefing, joint statement, and record provided to the Court is insufficient to address the discovery in dispute and to determine the parameters of a potential protective order. However, the parties agreed that at least some of the documents in dispute should be produced as responsive to the discovery requests, at least for the purposes of use in this federal civil proceeding, and agreed to begin the process of determining what documents Defendants will produce, subject to potential redactions and to the entry of a protective order limiting use of the documents outside of this proceeding. Thus, separate from the terms of the protective order which may apply to the documents produced, the Court will require the parties to meet and confer with the goal of narrowing any dispute concerning the scope of the discovery requests, and what aspects of the requests or specific documents Defendants maintain any objections as to. From the parties' representations at the hearing, it appears that they should be able to come to an agreement on what is and what is not relevant and producible within the officer's personnel files, and other documents which are responsive to the specific discovery requests in dispute, and thus narrow that aspect of the discovery dispute down to the specific remaining requests or documents which may require court intervention to further resolve disputes concerning. Ultimately, the Court is hopeful this aspect of the discovery dispute can be resolved without the need for the Court to address the specific requests, however if such dispute remains, the parties shall address, with clear and narrow specificity, which aspects of which requests remain in dispute, and the legal authorities applicable to the remaining dispute, in the supplemental joint statement.

On the other hand, it appears there is likely an impasse on the issue of whether the protective order shall restrict the ability of Plaintiff to use the disclosed materials outside of this federal civil proceeding, and specifically within the related criminal proceeding in state criminal court. The parties shall also meet and confer regarding this issue, and if unable to resolve, shall address this issue in their joint statement describing the parties' positions regarding this issue along with sufficient legal authority supporting their respective positions.

Additionally, in order to aid the meet and confer process, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with a draft of a proposed protective order on or before Monday, April 15, 2019.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.