Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00520-11/pdf.json

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

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA FOX, ON BEHALF OF 

HERSELF AND AS NEXT FRIEND TO 

C.M.R., A MINOR,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF TULARE, LETICIA 

CASTANEDA, ERICA SOTO, RON 

CASTANEDA, JULIA LANGLEY, 

CAROL HELDING, JOHN ROZUM, 

STEVEN ROGERS and DOES 1-100,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00520-AWI-SMS

ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 80)

On June 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel. Doc. 80. The parties filed 

their joint Local Rule 251 stipulation and exhibits on July 10, 2013. Doc. 85, 86. On July 25, 2013, 

the Court approved a stipulation regarding in camera review of personnel file of Clyde Tillery.

Doc. 95. By the terms of this stipulation, the Court undertook to “review said records to determine 

if the records are relevant on the issue of credibility and if the parties’ interest in discovery of the 

records outweighs the interest in maintaining confidentiality.” Id.

The key record is a Notice of Determination which explains the basis for Mr. Tillery’s 

termination from his job as a firefighter. Nevertheless, the Court finds itself unable to complete its 

in camera review of this document without further indication as to why Mr. Tillery matters to this 

case. As far as the Court can discern, the only appearance of Mr. Tillery’s name among the 

documents in the Court’s possession is in Defendants’ amended Rule 26 disclosure, filed with the 

Case 1:11-cv-00520-AWI-SMS Document 115 Filed 09/18/13 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

Court on August 22, 2013, which indicates that he “may testify as to his relationship with Steven 

Rogers (deceased), his interaction and observations concerning Plaintiffs and communications he 

had with defendants, their agents and employees.”

Plaintiffs and Defendants shall each concurrently file a brief explanation of their position (if 

any) on this in camera review. Because the Court is attempting to identify records which are 

“relevant on the issue of credibility,” the Court will find particularly useful any information which 

the parties desire to volunteer as to Mr. Tillery’s putative relevancy to the case. There is no page 

limit, but a filing of less than a page or two could satisfy these requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2013 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

icido34h

Case 1:11-cv-00520-AWI-SMS Document 115 Filed 09/18/13 Page 2 of 2