Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01603/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01603-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER WHITE, ZERITA 

WHITE, G’SHELLE WHITE AND 

DANTRELL STEVENS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1603 JAM KJN PS (TEMP) 

ORDER 

 This action came before the court on May 19, 2016, for hearing of defendants’ motion to 

compel production against plaintiff Christopher White. Attorney Kelly Trujillo appeared 

telephonically behalf of the defendants. There was no appearance by, or on behalf of, any 

plaintiff. 

 Upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, and for the 

reasons set forth on the record at that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Defendants’ April 19, 2016 motion to compel (Dkt. No. 39) is granted; 

 2. Plaintiff Christopher White shall produce responsive documents within 21 days of the 

date of this order, or file a statement that he is no longer pursuing damages for lost income in this 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01603-JAM-DB Document 44 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 2
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 

2

 action1; 

 3. Within 14 days of the date of this order, plaintiff Christopher White shall file a 

response as to why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of $250 for failing to file a timely 

opposition, or a statement of non-opposition, and for failing to appear at the May 19, 2016 

hearing; and 

 4. If plaintiff Christopher White fails to file a timely response to this order the 

undersigned will recommend that plaintiff Christopher White be dismissed from this action. 

 Dated: May 20, 2016 

BVD\white1603.oah.051916.docx 

 

1

 If after receiving plaintiff’s production, defendants determine that a further deposition of 

plaintiff Christopher White is necessary, defendants may, after meeting and conferring with Mr. 

White, raise the issue of a further deposition with the court, including who should be responsible 

for paying for that deposition. 

Case 2:14-cv-01603-JAM-DB Document 44 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 2