Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05741/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05741-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ADAMS, et al., CASE NO. CV-F-02-5741 LJO DLB

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR FURTHER

DISCOVERY 

vs.

PAUL SPEERS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On September 28, 2007, plaintiffs John and Cathy Adams (“collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the

present motion for discovery of documents regarding a prior “act” by defendant California Highway

Patrol Officer Paul Speers (“Officer Speers”). Officer Spears filed an opposition on October 23, 2007

and plaintiffs filed a reply on November 2, 2007. The matter was deemed suitable for decision without

oral argument and taken under submission.

The documents requested are BATES stamped CHP 1395 - 1509 and CHP 1543 - 1705 and

describe a July 28, 2000 shooting of or toward a suspect in a high speed pursuit by defendant Speers.

On April 16, 2003, the Court denied without prejudice, plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of these

documents as privileged. The Court’s order was without prejudice to renew their motion after review

of the public record. Plaintiffs renewed their motion for disclosure of the documents in November 2004

based on statements and admissions made by witnesses in depositions. Plaintiffs requested this Court

to revisit the April 16 orderto address plaintiffs’ claims regarding Officer Speers’ insertion into ongoing

pursuits and firearm discharge. To that end, the Court conducted a November 22, 2004 telephone

Case 1:02-cv-05741-LJO-DLB Document 160 Filed 03/06/08 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

This Court telephoned Mr. Wyckoff’s office to request a missing page from the investigation documents,

1

and the document was provided.

2

conference with Plaintiffs’ counsel Randal W. Hooper and Officer Speers’ counsel Scott H. Wyckoff.

On November 22, 2004, this Court received and reviewed again the investigation documents and

personnel file. 

1

Based on the Court’s further review and the oral arguments of counsel, on November 22, 2004,

the Court reaffirmed that the investigation documents and personnel file, except portions which the April

16 order required produced, were not subject to discovery under F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). 

In the present motion, Plaintiffs again request an order unsealing and producing the same

documents. Plaintiffs provide no new argument, facts or law in support of their request to reconsider

the prior orders of the Court finding that the documents twice reviewed by the Court were not subject

to discovery. Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 6, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05741-LJO-DLB Document 160 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 2