Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00554-14/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON JEROME MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0554 DAD PS

ORDER

This matter came before the court on August 14, 2015, for the hearing of plaintiff’s 

motion to compel. Attorney Kelly Trujillo appeared on behalf of the defendants and plaintiff 

Leon Jerome Martin appeared on his own behalf. After hearing argument, defendants were 

directed to conduct further inquiry into various issues and file a letter with the court addressing 

whether defendants have produced all documents responsive to plaintiff’s discovery requests. 

(Dkt. No. 76.)

On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a letter “requesting that the Court consider modifying 

its discovery cutoff date,” and seeking an order requiring defendants to “return the witness and 

traveling fees” provided to defendants for a witness that did not appear at the August 14, 2015 

hearing. (Dkt. No. 77.) However, plaintiff’s requests are appropriately brought in the form of a

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 80 Filed 08/28/15 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

motion noticed for hearing before the undersigned in compliance with the Local Rules.1 

On August 26, 2015, defendants filed their letter, stating that defendants have “produced 

all responsive documents to plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 78 at 2.) As was discussed at the August 14, 

2015 hearing, defendants state that they have produced the relevant investigative report to 

plaintiff, that the investigation into the Deocampo incident occurred more than ten years prior to 

the incident at issue and that, while “an informal investigation and disposition occurred” in 

response to the Channel 7 News Report, “no written records exist.” (Id. at 1-2.) 

Accordingly, upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, 

and for the reasons set forth on the record at that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s July 22, 2015 motion to compel (Dkt. No. 65) is granted in part and denied 

in part;

2. Within seven days of the date of this order defendants shall produce to plaintiff a log 

identifying the officers not previously identified in defendants’ production; and

3. Plaintiff’s August 21, 2015 request is denied without prejudice to being brought as a 

motion noticed for hearing before the undersigned in compliance with the Local Rules. 

Dated: August 28, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.consent\martin0554.oah.081415.docx

 

1 With regard to plaintiff’s request that the City return witness and travel fees in connection with 

witnesses who were not required to appear at the August 14, 2015 hearing, the court would 

encourage the City to do so voluntarily without the need for a motion. The court made clear prior 

to hearing that no live testimony would be taken and that no witnesses should appear.

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 80 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 2