Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00554-6/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

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 December 10, 2014, for the hearing of plaintiff’s 

October 16, 2014, motion to compel (Dkt. No. 27) and plaintiff’s motion regarding the terms of a 

protective order. (Dkt. No. 26.) Assistant City Attorney Kelly Trujillo appeared on behalf of the 

defendants and plaintiff Leon Martin appeared on his own behalf.

Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set 

forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 27) and motion regarding the terms of a 

protective order (Dkt. No. 26) are granted; 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 35 Filed 12/11/14 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

2. Within 30 days, defendants shall produce to plaintiff responsive documents for the 

prior ten years or submit some, or all, of those documents to the court for in camera review1if 

necessary2;

3. Defendants shall also file a proposed stipulated protective order and serve a 

copy of that proposed stipulated protective order on plaintiff; and

4. Plaintiff shall file objections to the proposed stipulated protective order, if any, 

within fourteen days of the date plaintiff is served with a copy of the proposed stipulated 

protective order. 

Dated: December 10, 2014

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.consent\martin0554.oah.121014.docx

 

1

 Defendants are cautioned that documents should be submitted for the court’s in camera review 

only if truly necessary and that defendant’s submission should not be voluminous. If defendants’ 

submission does not comply with these principles the court will reconsider the order allowing 

defendants to submit documents for in camera review prior to production. 

2

 In the event that defendants move for reconsideration of this order, this order shall be stayed 

pending the court’s ruling on defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 35 Filed 12/11/14 Page 2 of 2