Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05420/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05420-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 motion, which was referred to the undersigned for disposition, is deemed

appropriate for determination without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(a).

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMAR EVANS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNKNOWN NAMES OF DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS OFFICERS and SANTA

CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Defendants. /

No. C03-05420 RMW (HRL)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

[Re: Docket No. 111]

Plaintiff Jamar Evans, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant

action for alleged violation of his civil rights. He claims that, while being booked on or about

April 2, 2003, he was unnecessarily assaulted and battered by several (as yet unidentified)

officers of the Santa Clara County Department of Corrections. Plaintiff asserts that in January

2005, the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) provided him with a videotape showing the

individual officers involved in the alleged incident.

Plaintiff contends that the videotape is incomplete; and, on May 2, 2007, he moved for

an order compelling the DOC to produce “the complete and entire video surveillance of plaintiff

being booked in to the Department of Correction, and [sic] on or about April 3, 2003.” (Mot. at

p. 1).1

 The DOC apparently had previously objected to the discovery as premature because the

*E-FILED: 6/11/2007*

Case 5:03-cv-05420-RMW Document 118 Filed 06/11/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

parties had not yet held their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference. Defense counsel now attests that,

at the parties’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference held on May 16, 2007, “the parties agreed that

Plaintiff would withdraw his discovery requests to date and serve them again on the County,

including the discovery sought in Plaintiff’s Motion.” (See Fligor Declaration, ¶ 2). Plaintiff

has offered no information to the contrary.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s May 2, 2007 motion to compel is

DENIED as MOOT.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

June 11, 2007

Case 5:03-cv-05420-RMW Document 118 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5:03-cv-5420 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Neysa A. Fligor neysa.fligor@cco.sccgov.org 

A copy of this document will be mailed to:

Jamar Evans 

Post Office Box 25 

Atwater, CA 95301 

Dated: ______________________________

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

6/11/2007 /s/

Case 5:03-cv-05420-RMW Document 118 Filed 06/11/07 Page 3 of 3