Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04494/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04494-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

1 The parties are cautioned that the Court’s Order re Discovery Procedures does not

provide for joint letters to the Court, and henceforth they must comply with that Order. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEHRDAD ALEMOZAFFAR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-04494 JSW (EDL)

ORDER RE: AUGUST 8, 2008 LETTER

FROM PARTIES

On June 11, 2008, after a discovery hearing on June 4, 2008, the Court ordered Defendants to

produce certain documents in response to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents. 

Subsequently, Defendants produced responsive documents. At issue now, as raised by the parties’

August 8, 2008 letter, is whether Defendants’ redactions in the documents of allegations of

misconduct against officers other than the Defendants in this lawsuit were proper.1

 The Court has

carefully reviewed the August 8, 2008 letter and issues the following Order.

Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery of information about officer witnesses involved in the

same incidents of alleged misconduct as the Defendant officers, whether those non-Defendant

officers were at the scene of the alleged misconduct or whether they became involved at some point,

such as in the investigation of the misconduct. Although Defendants represent that they have not

redacted the names of non-Defendant officers who were “witnesses,” Plaintiff is entitled to

Case 3:07-cv-04494-JSW Document 38 Filed 08/12/08 Page 1 of 2
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

information, including additional allegations, involving those non-Defendant officers if they were

involved in the same incidents of alleged misconduct as the Defendant officers. No later than

August 19, 2008, Defendants shall produce unredacted documents pursuant to this Order. 

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. Not only must a motion for sanctions be made in a

separate motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-3, the Court concludes that Defendants’ redactions

were not an unreasonable interpretation of Plaintiff’s discovery requests and this Court’s Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04494-JSW Document 38 Filed 08/12/08 Page 2 of 2