Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03276/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03276-11/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03276-HSG 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 66

Having read and considered the parties’ joint discovery letter dated March 17, 2015 and 

the materials submitted by Defendants on March 24, 2015 for in camera review, the Court 

ORDERS as follows:

1. By April 24, 2015, each party shall submit a supplemental discovery letter of no more 

than three pages addressing the following question: under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) and 

Ninth Circuit cases interpreting that rule, can work product protection apply to material

that was created in anticipation of litigation but not created at the request or direction 

of an attorney or an attorney’s agent?

2. Plaintiff’s letter must include any asserted basis for a showing of substantial need for 

discovery of the April 15, 2012 memorandum at issue, if the Court finds that the 

memorandum is entitled to work product protection.

3. Defendant’s letter must attach and discuss any City of Santa Clara policies or 

procedures bearing on the question of whether the City’s investigative work in 

response to administrative claims like Mr. Weaver’s March 23, 2012 claim is 

conducted “in anticipation of litigation.” 

4. The Declaration of Rodger Hayton quoted by Defendants in the discovery letter does 

not provide a sufficient factual basis for the Court to resolve the issues presented. By 

Case 4:13-cv-03276-HSG Document 70 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

April 24, 2015, Defendants shall submit for in camera review declarations containing 

firsthand knowledge, along with any other documentary evidence, sufficient to 

establish the following facts:

a. the date the administrative claim filed by James Weaver on March 23, 2012 

was resolved by the City of Santa Clara;

b. the identity of any person who directed or asked Officer Crescini to draft the 

April 15, 2012 memorandum, and the specific content of any such 

communication; 

c. the identity of any attorney (including outside counsel and attorneys at the City 

Attorney’s Office) involved in the preparation, review or transmission of the

April 15, 2012 memorandum. For each identified attorney, the materials must 

describe the details and dates of such involvement, including the specific 

content of any communications with the Santa Clara Police Department or 

others regarding the April 15, 2012 memorandum.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/20/2015

Case 4:13-cv-03276-HSG Document 70 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 2