Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02402/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02402-5/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 

RACHEL AKEY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PLACER COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2402-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

 On May 5, 2016, the court conducted a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to compel the 

production of documents. (ECF No. 39.) At the hearing, attorney Patrick Dwyer appeared on 

behalf of plaintiffs, and attorney Clayton Cook appeared on behalf of defendants. After carefully 

considering the parties’ joint statement regarding the discovery disagreement and the parties’ 

representations at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART. 

2. Defendants shall expeditiously produce what the parties refer to as “Level III and E/R 

Referrals” for a period of 12 months of plaintiffs’ choice. The months may be 

consecutive or non-consecutive, as long as a cumulative total of 12 months are 

requested. Plaintiffs shall advise defendants of their selected months as soon as 

Case 2:14-cv-02402-KJM-DB Document 47 Filed 05/06/16 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

possible, but in any event no later than seven (7) days after the issuance of this order. 

3. If plaintiffs, upon review of the responsive documents, determine that they have a 

good faith basis to seek Referrals for an additional time period(s), they shall meet and 

confer with defendants about additional proposed time periods. If the parties are 

unable to reach an informal resolution of the matter, they may seek the court’s 

assistance in resolving the matter.1

4. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED, because the court finds that defendants 

were substantially justified in opposing plaintiffs’ motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 6, 2016 

 

 

1

 The court strongly encourages the use of informal telephonic discovery conferences with the 

court in lieu of formal discovery motion practice. The procedures and conditions for requesting 

and conducting such an informal telephonic discovery conference are outlined in Judge 

Newman’s “Order re Informal Telephonic Conferences re Discovery Disputes,” posted on the 

court’s website at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5046/. 

Additionally, subject to the court’s availability, the court will rule on disputes encountered at oral 

depositions, so as to avoid such depositions from breaking down. In the course of the deposition, 

the parties may contact Judge Newman’s courtroom deputy clerk at (916) 930-4187 to inquire 

regarding Judge Newman’s availability. However, the parties are cautioned that these informal 

procedures are not to be abused, and the court may impose appropriate sanctions on an offending 

party or parties, even in the course of informal discovery conferences. 

Case 2:14-cv-02402-KJM-DB Document 47 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 2