Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00072/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00072-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

1

 Although, in their briefing, plaintiffs also styled the motion as an application for a

temporary restraining order, the court construes the motion simply as a motion for a preservation

order. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 TIEN HONG VO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-00072 GEB EFB

vs.

JAN SCULLY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On January 9, 2007, plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion for a protective order pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The court construed the supporting affidavits for that motion as an

application for an order shortening time and granted such application, specially setting the

motion for hearing on January 10, 2007.1

 Anthony Palik appeared as counsel for plaintiffs, and

John A. Lavra appeared as counsel for defendants. 

////

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-00072-GEB-EFB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

 The Principal Code Enforcement Officer for the County of Sacramento’s Municipal

Services Agency and its Department of Planning and Community Development. See Declaration

of Richard Maddox (“Maddox Decl.”), at ¶ 1. 

3

 These dates were proffered as a parameter by Mr. Palik at the hearing. It is the court’s

understanding – and Mr. Lavra may provide evidence to the contrary – that all of the County’s

electronic data from employee computers (save those in the District Attorney Office and

Sheriff’s Department, which have separate information systems) is backed up and saved for one

year. It is also the court’s understanding, based on the Maddox declaration and Mr. Palik’s

representations that this information is accessible on back-up tapes or disks, which are organized

by date.

2

Plaintiffs allege in the motion, and in the accompanying affidavit of Richard Maddox,2

that the County of Sacramento uses two computer management agencies to maintain, store and

retrieve electronic data from its employees’ computers: (1) the Municipal Services Agency

Management Information System (MSA/MIS) and (2) the Office of Communications and

Information Technology (OCIT). Maddox Decl., at ¶ 2. According to plaintiffs, all electronic

data that is deleted by county employees is stored on back-up media (discs or tapes), that is

preserved for only one year, and then is deleted as a matter of county policy. Id. at ¶ 3. Thus,

for example, information backed-up onto the tapes on January 10, 2006, would be deleted,

destroyed, or erased on January 10, 2007.

Plaintiffs believe there may be relevant, discoverable information stored on back-up tapes

currently held by the county from January 10, 2006 (one day before the action was filed) through

February 10, 2006. Maddox Decl. , at ¶¶ 3-4; Declaration of Anthony J. Palik (“Palik Decl.”), at

¶ 5. More precisely, plaintiffs are concerned that there may be relevant electronic data,

including e-mails, draft correspondence and memoranda, concerning county employees who are

potential witnesses in the case, and that such data may be destroyed in the normal course of

business as the back-up tapes are deleted. Id. Plaintiffs seek an order to preserve intact any and

all back-up media presently in existence that contains the contents of any and all servers of the

computer networks operated by MSA/MIS and OCIT, from January 10, 2006 through February

10, 2006.3

Case 2:06-cv-00072-GEB-EFB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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

4

 To the extent these tapes containing data from January 10, 2006, have not been erased

or destroyed at the time of this order, they shall be preserved. 

3

At the hearing, plaintiffs clarified that they do not seek production of the back-up media

at this time. Rather, they simply seek an order to prevent destruction or erasure of the back-up

tapes. Counsel for defendants was unable to confirm that county data is stored in the way

described by plaintiff’s counsel and Mr. Maddox, or to otherwise provide information as to the

burden of setting aside the relevant back-up tapes, if such tapes in fact exist. 

In light of the foregoing, the court hereby issues this interim order to maintain the status

quo and prevent MSA/MIS and OCIT from deleting or otherwise destroying the tapes (if in fact

such tapes, or discs, or similar back-up media exist) that preserve electronic data from January

10, 2006 to February 10, 20064

 pending the hearing set for January 24, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. This

order is subject to reconsideration at the hearing to be held at 10:00 a.m. on January 11, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 10, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00072-GEB-EFB Document 41 Filed 01/10/07 Page 3 of 3