Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00687/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00687-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ALVETT FOBBS, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

RELATED ACTIONS:

ANGELIQUE PAIGE, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

ALVETT FOBBS, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C09-2723 (PJH) JCS

DISCOVERY ORDER NO. 3

Case No. C09-0687 PJH (JCS)

Case No. C10-1065 PJH (JCS)

Case 4:09-cv-00687-PJH Document 72 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court has received a Joint Letter dated June 15, 2005 signed by counsel for Plaintiffs

and Defendants in Fobbs I, and received a Joint Discovery Conference statement signed by counsel

for all parties. The Court held a hearing on July 1, 2010, at which counsel for all parties appeared. 

The Court interprets the Joint Letter as a Motion to Compel. The Motion to Compel is GRANTED

IN PART, AND DENIED IN PART, and the Court rules on the matters set forth in the Joint

Discovery Conference Statement, as set forth below. Good cause appearing, and for reasons stated

on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Fobbs I Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition of Defendant Union City. 

Topic 6 – Union City shall produce a witness or witnesses to testify on programs, in

which the Union City Police Department participated during the last 5 years,

designed to prevent violence by Latino or African American gangs. Except as

modified the topic is overbroad. Topics 13, 14, 15 - denied without prejudice to

renewing after class certification is decided. The topics are overbroad, and go well

beyond the scope of class discovery. Topics 16 through 20 – Union City shall

produce a witness, to testify for no more than 2 hours, on training of Union City

Police officer in responding to inter racial violence. Except as so modified the topics

are overbroad, and go well beyond the scope of class discovery. 

2. Deposition questions in Fobbs I regarding interactions by plaintiffs and other

members of the putative class with police officers – the motion to compel is

GRANTED. Evidence Rule 609 is not applicable, as this discovery is not just for

purposes of impeachment. No inquiry may be made into proceedings that occurred in

the juvenile court, or into the judgments and orders entered by such a court.

3. Fobbs I Plaintiffs’ Request for portions of the Eddins’ Homicide file withheld on the

basis of privilege. The Defendants and the Attorney General shall serve a privilege

log listing each document withheld, the privilege asserted, and a description of each

document sufficient for the Court to determine the applicability of the privilege, on

the Court and all counsel on or before July 2, 2010.

4. Fobbs I Plaintiffs’ Request for missing supplemental reports from the Eddins’

Homicide file. On or before July 9, 2010 Defendants shall serve a declaration, under

Case 4:09-cv-00687-PJH Document 72 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

oath, describing why there appear to be gaps in the numbering of the reports in the

Eddins’ Homicide file, and produce any missing reports.

5. Dates of birth and address of certain minor deponents in Fobbs I. For any past such

deponents who have refused to provide this information, the Plaintiffs shall serve an

Interrogatory Answer, under oath, containing the information requested. All future

minor deponents shall not refuse to provide this information. All such information

shall be provide on an Attorney’s Eyes Only basis.

6. Fobbs I Plaintiffs’ Request for further sampling of the incidents for which police

reports where produce in response to Document Requests 5 and 6 is DENIED without

prejudice to requesting this information after decision on the motion for class

certification.

7. Fobbs I Plaintiffs’ request to expand the time period for production of documents

from the past 5 years to the past 7 years is DENIED without prejudice to requesting

this information after decision on the motion for class certification.

8. A further discovery conference is specially set for July 15, 2010, at 3:00 p.m. A joint

further discovery conference statement shall be filed in advance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2010

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:09-cv-00687-PJH Document 72 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 3