Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00326/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00326-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRA VALDEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

)

CITY OF WOODLAKE, WOODLAKE )

POLICE DEPARTMENT, RICHARD )

WILLIAMS, individually, and )

in his official capacity as )

Police Officer for the City )

of Woodlake Police Department,)

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05-cv-00326-AWI-SMS

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF

INFORMATION FROM OFFICER

RICHARD WILLIAMS’ PERSONNEL

FILES REVIEWED IN CAMERA

(Docs. 39 & 47)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel the Tulare County District

Attorney’s Office to comply with subpoena duces tecum pursuant to

FRCP Rule 45 (doc. 39) came on regularly for hearing on December

16, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 4 before the Honorable

Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. Peter N.

Kapetan, Esq., of Kapetan & Kapetan appeared on behalf of

plaintiff. Leonard C. Herr, Esq., of Dooley & Herr, LLP, appeared

on behalf of defendant, Richard Williams. Deputy County Counsel

Teresa M. Saucedo appeared for non-party but interested entity, the

Tulare County District Attorney’s Office.

Case 1:05-cv-00326-AWI -SMS Document 63 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The Court, once again, notes her appreciation to Attorney Saucedo

for the very helpful file markings and organization of the records,

prepared, as understood, by Ms. Saucedo herself.

2

Counsel met in chambers with the Court and resolved most of

the disputes as set forth in plaintiff’s motion. The resolutions

and what remained as conflict were stated on the record at the

conclusion of the informal discovery dispute conference (doc. 47). 

The record made in open court shall serve as the Order regarding

plaintiff’s motion except for that set forth below, which is the

result of this Court’s in camera review of all of Officer Richard

Williams’ personnel files, left with the Court at the conclusion of

the hearing herein.1

The following documents are ORDERED copied and produced to

plaintiff’s counsel, the City of Woodlake, and Officer Richard

Williams in accordance with the Stipulated Protective Order Re:

Confidential Information, signed by the Court and filed on January

19, 2006 (doc. 50):

A. Psychological Recommendation of 12-09-02;

B. Psychological Recommendation of 09-10-03;

C. Pre-Employment Background Investigation Report, 9-11-03;

D. Background Contact Sheets, Nov. 2002;

E. Memo Terminating Background Investigation, 12-16-02;

F. Notice of Termination, 8-24-04;

G. Letter of Termination, 8-23-04;

H. Memo from Chief Zapalac re: Expectations, 10-05-03;

I. Employee Evaluation, 4-22-04.

//

/

Case 1:05-cv-00326-AWI -SMS Document 63 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Other files/documents reviewed but not ordered produced

include medical history and exam reports, credit reports, various

military records including recommendations for meritorious service

medal, dissolution of marriage documents, college transcripts, POST

certifications, firearm certifications, and payroll data. There

were no internal affairs investigation or citizen complaint

documents contained among the personnel records reviewed. 

Lastly, the Court refers to attorney John R. Rozier’s letter

to the Court of October 7, 2005, forwarding (1) Woodlake police

Department Memorandum from Sgt. J. Hart to Chief Zapalax dated

06/19/04; (2) Cassette tape labeled IA 04-03 Radio Traffic 8-31-05

copy; and, (3) Cassette tape labeled IA 04-03 R. Williams Statement

8-31-05 copy and the Court’s letter of November 4, 2005, returning

the two (2) cassette tapes to Mr. Rozier, not reviewed by this

Court.

To the extent that item (1) was not contained in the Williams’

personnel files reviewed, this Memorandum is also ORDERED produced,

if not already done so. Further, copies of the cassette tapes

referred to in (2) and (3) above are also ORDERED produced to

plaintiff’s counsel and defendant Williams. More importantly,

referring to Mr. Rozier’s letter, there are arguably two (2)

additional cassette tapes in the possession of the District

Attorney’s Office, which Office has indicated a subpoena is

necessary for their production of same. It is the ORDER of this

Court that copies of those two (2) additional cassette tapes also

be produced forthwith.

//

/

Case 1:05-cv-00326-AWI -SMS Document 63 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Said documents shall be served on counsel as set forth

hereinabove on or before March 31, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00326-AWI -SMS Document 63 Filed 03/13/06 Page 4 of 4