Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00444/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00444-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW FOGEL 

Plaintiff,

v.

GRASS VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT,

et al., 

Defendants. 

 No. Civ. 05-0444 DFL KJM

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND

ORDER

Plaintiff Matthew Fogel (“Fogel”) moves to correct the

record on appeal to include deposition transcripts and exhibits

submitted to the court via hard copy but not filed as exhibits to

plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment. For the reasons

stated below, the record shall be corrected to include the

portions of the transcripts relied on by the court and referred

to by the parties in their motions for summary judgment. In

addition, both parties submitted photographs of the writing on

Fogel’s van. Because the electronic copies of the photographs

are illegible, the photographs will also be made part of the

record. 

Case 2:05-cv-00444-DFL -KJM Document 54 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 5
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

 Local Rule 5-133(j) states that: 1

Depositions shall not be filed through CM/ECF. Prior to

or upon the filing of a document making reference to a

deposition, counsel relying on the deposition shall

ensure that a courtesy hard copy of the entire

deposition so relied upon has been submitted to the

Clerk for use in chambers. Alternatively, counsel

relying on a deposition may submit an electronic copy

of the deposition in lieu of the courtesy paper copy to

the emailbox of the Judge or Magistrate Judge and

concurrently email or otherwise transmit the deposition

to all other parties. Neither hard copy nor electronic

copy of the entire deposition will become part of the

official record of the action absent order of the

Court. Pertinent portions of the deposition intended to

become part of the official record shall be submitted

as exhibits in support of a motion or otherwise.

2

I.

Fogel painted a provocative message on the back of his van.

The police were called, and Fogel was arrested. No charges were

filed. Fogel subsequently brought several claims against

defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims,

and Fogel cross-moved for summary judgment on the § 1983 claims. 

In support of his partial motion for summary judgment, Fogel

submitted copies of several depositions and exhibits in

compliance with Local Rule 5-133(j). However, Fogel mistakenly 1

failed to attach these documents as exhibits to his motion for

summary judgment. Therefore, the documents did not become a part

of the record. 

II.

Documents not filed with the district court are not part of

the record on appeal. Fed.R.App.P. 10(a)(1); Kirshner v. Uniden

Case 2:05-cv-00444-DFL -KJM Document 54 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988). However, the

district court may supplement the record with any accidentally

omitted documents if the parties relied upon those documents and

the court used them to form the basis of its opinion. 

Fed.R.App.P. 10(e); Townsend v. Columbia Operations, 667 F.2d

844, 849 (9th Cir. 1982). This ensures that the appellate court

can review what actually occurred in the district court. Id. 

Rule 10(e) is consistent with the general idea that

procedural rules “should be liberally construed” so that “mere

technicalities” do not “stand in the way of consideration of a

case on its merits.” Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S.

312, 316-17, 108 S.Ct. 2405 (1988). If a party’s submission of

papers to the court “is the functional equivalent of what the

rule requires,” the court may find that the party has complied

with the rule. Id. 

Both parties relied on the depositions and exhibits in their

papers. Fogel referred to them throughout his statement of

undisputed facts (“SUF”). Defendants referred to them throughout

their reply to Fogel’s SUF. Therefore, analyzing this case

necessarily required examining the cited sections of the

depositions and exhibits, which made them an integral part of the

ultimate decision in this case. 

Defendants oppose correcting the record, arguing that

Fogel’s error was more than a “mere technicality.” (Opp’n at 5.) 

Defendants point out that when Fogel filed his summary judgment

motion, he failed to provide a supporting declaration from his

Case 2:05-cv-00444-DFL -KJM Document 54 Filed 05/31/06 Page 3 of 5
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

counsel under Fed.R.Civ.P 56(e). (Id. at 3.) Consequently,

Fogel failed to attach his depositions and exhibits to that

declaration. (Id. at 3-4.) Defendants allege that failure to

comply with this rule burdened the court because the court had to

“go to the electronically filed [d]epositions and scan them to

look for the testimony referenced in the moving papers.” (Id. at

4.) Defendants claim that “[i]t is absurdly difficult for a

judge to perform a search, unassisted by counsel, through the

entire record, to look for such evidence.” (Id.)

Despite defendants’ claim, such a burden was not imposed on

the court. The court had no problem finding the sections of the

depositions referenced by Fogel because he provided specific page

and line number citations in his SUF. Although Fogel did not

follow the exact letter of the rule, he provided the functional

equivalent. From the court’s perspective, Fogel’s error was a

“mere technicality.” 

Thus, the record shall be corrected to include the portions

of the deposition transcripts relied on by the court and referred

to by the parties in their motions for summary judgment.

Defendants attached to their moving papers the portions of the

transcripts that they cited, thereby making them part of the

record. Therefore, the court only needs to correct the record to

include those pages cited by plaintiff and not referred to by the

defendants. Accordingly, the pages of the transcripts to be

added are as follows:

Fogel Dep., pp. 22, 33, 35-37, 45, 62, 66-70, 76-77.

Case 2:05-cv-00444-DFL -KJM Document 54 Filed 05/31/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Collins Dep., pp. 18-19.

Hooker Dep., pp. 11, 13, 15-17, 23, 30, 42, 59, 61-62, 64,

67, 74, 82-83.

Johnson Dep., pp. 9, 23.

McKenzie Dep., pp. 50, 57.

Perry Dep., pp. 40, 51, 56-57, 61, 66, 68-69, 71-73, 82. 

Finally, the photographs submitted by both parties depicting

the writing on Fogel’s van are ordered part of the record because

the electronic copies are illegible. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/30/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00444-DFL -KJM Document 54 Filed 05/31/06 Page 5 of 5