Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556-17/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLY LOUEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

)

FRESNO POLICE OFFICER BRIAN )

TWEDT; THE CITY OF FRESNO, )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04-cv-06556-OWW-SMS

ORDER RE: COURT’S IN CAMERA

REVIEW OF RECORDS/DOCUMENTS

ORDERED PRODUCED

(Doc. 164)

Pursuant to the Court’s Order of November 14, 2006, the

following documents were received and reviewed in camera. 

Production is ORDERED as follows:

A. Copies of Clovis Police reports 02-8699 and 04-4314:

It is presumed all parties have copies of these reports. 

If not, copies should be produced immediately to all parties by

whomever supplied them to the Court;

B. Copies of Plaintiff’s Petition For Injunction

Prohibiting Civil Harassment pursuant to CCP §527.6 action, the

transcript of the June 30, 2004, proceedings before Judge Putnam,

and the Restraining Order issued in the state court proceeding: 

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 183 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 7
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

It is presumed all parties have copies of these

documents. If not, copies are ordered produced immediately to all

parties by counsel for Plaintiff;

C. A copy of the Complaint for Damages filed in Fresno

County Superior Court on June 23, 2005, on behalf of plaintiffs

Brian and Vicki Twedt against defendants Laura M. Guzman-Magill and

Mike Louen:

Presumably all parties have copies.

D. A copy of Defendant/Fresno Police Officer Brian’s Twedt’s

personnel file containing documents predating his hire with Fresno

Police Department to his most recent Annual Evaluation for 03-31-05

to 03-31-06:

The majority of the several hundreds of pages of entries

include rudimentary personal data regarding Defendant’s law

enforcement candidacy, his college background, data about his

marriage, etc., none of which is determined to be relevant to the

issues of this lawsuit and are therefore not discoverable.

There are literally dozens and dozens of letters of

commendation and appreciation received by and/or about Defendant

over his years of law enforcement service. Should Plaintiff want

copies of all of these letters, Defendant shall produce them upon

request. Note: They are all highly complimentary of Defendant, his

skills, demeanor and professionalism in the line of duty, and most

of them are from random citizens of the community.

Defendant’s personnel file contains yearly evaluations of

his overall performance. For each yearly evaluation the Defendant

received “Meets Standard, Exceeds Standard, or Outstanding” ratings

for all criteria. The Court found no “Unacceptable and/or Needs

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 183 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 7
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

Improvement” ratings. For the evaluation year 04-01-02 to 03-31-03

mention is made of counseling Officer Twedt in letter form

regarding responding to a call for aid from his frightened wife. 

“He was reminded to disqualify himself from situations involving

family members.” Thereafter in the report it was stated, “Twedt

had no disciplinary history for this rating period.” Note: This

entry appears to relate to Internal Investigation 2002-0180,

discussed below.

Internal Investigation 2004-0109 contains literally

hundreds of pages of documents relating to the ongoing neighborhood

dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants. It is difficult for this

Court to determine the precise or even approximate commencement

date of the dispute that is the subject of the lawsuit herein. 

However, as dates relate to the Annual Evaluations contained in

Defendant’s personnel file, the Court notes two entries that are

confusing:

1. For Evaluation Period 03-31-04 to 03-31-05, there is

one sentence stating, “Twedt received no citizen complaints or

inquiries during this rating period.” Clearly the FPD was aware of

the conflict between Defendant and Plaintiff during this time

period, but whether there was actually any new complaints or

inquiries made during this period OR whether the City was engaged

in internal investigation of the matters that are the subject of

the herein lawsuit between those particular dates is difficult for

the Court to determine. For example, the Court was provided with

Internal Investigations 2005-0052 regarding an alleged incident

that occurred on March 13, 2005, between interested person Laura

Guzman-Magill and Defendant. A review of that IA file reveals that

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 183 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

this alleged incident of 3/13/05 is very much related to the

ongoing and underlying dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants of

which the FPD and Defendant City of Fresno were aware. See below

re: IA 2005-0052.

2. For Evaluation Period 03-31-05 to 03-31-06, there is

also one sentence stating, “Twedt received no citizen complaints or

inquiries during this rating period.” In fact, that does not

appear to be true as evidenced by Internal Investigation 2005-0074

concerning an alleged confrontation between Defendant while on duty

and Nancy Schultz’s receipt of two “jaywalking” citations from

Defendant on April 18, 2005. Again, it appears to the Court that

this particular incident also relates directly to the ongoing

dispute between Defendant and Plaintiff herein. See below re: IA

2005-0074.

Finally, the Court makes note of a couple of disciplinary

matters that date back to the Evaluation Period 04/01/98 to -

3/31/99. One has to do with vehicle property damage, slight, and

another with an alleged theft during a search and thereafter not

being honest with superiors about it. Defendant Twedt was

disciplined and nonetheless described as a very good officer who

“accepted constructive criticism and has not spoken negative about

the department, but has handled whatever assignment given to him.” 

This Court finds that neither of these matters are relevant to the

action at hand and, as such, does not order the discovery of any

documents or information about these two matters. So, too, an

incident dating back to 11-21-95 wherein the Defendant was

reprimanded for failing to initiate a pursuit properly. That is

not relevant nor discoverable.

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 183 Filed 12/21/06 Page 4 of 7
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

See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F2d 1027, 1033 (9 Cir. 1990); Franklin Savings Ass’n v. 1 th

Ryan, 922 F2d 209, 211 (4 Cir. 1991).

th

5

E. Copies of Internal Affairs Investigations 2001-0033, 

2002-0180, 2004-0109, 2005-0052, and 2005-0074:

1. 2001-0033 - A complaint about the alleged use of

excessive force during pursuit and arrest of an attempted murder

suspect. The matter is wholly irrelevant to the underlying action

and is not discoverable.

2. 2002-0180 - Referenced above, the matter does relate

to the parties and facts being litigated in the herein action. 

Defendant City is hereby ORDERED to produce the contents of the

file, including the investigation notes, except for the ultimate

findings and conclusions of the Internal Affairs Officers. [The 1

discipline imposed was discussed above, referencing a letter of

counseling.]

3. 2004-0109 - This is the IA file regarding the

lawsuit that is the subject of this order. The Court assumes it

has already been copied and produced to Plaintiff and other

parties. If not, the Court now ORDERS it produced in its entirety

except for the ultimate findings and conclusions of the Internal

Affairs Officers. As it is obvious to the Court that Plaintiff

has, or must have due to the bulk of it having to do with the state

court action, most of the contents of this file, Defendant City may

certainly meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel herein to

determine what portions of this file to produce. [The findings and

conclusions re: the allegations of abuse of authority and

professionalism was “Unsustained.”] 

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 183 Filed 12/21/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

4. 2005-0052 - This matter, too, relates to the parties

and facts being litigated in the herein action. Defendant City is

hereby ORDERED to produce the contents of this file, including the

investigation notes, except for the ultimate findings and

conclusions of the Internal Affairs Officers. [The findings and

conclusions re: allegations of failure to obey the law with regard

to violating a court ordered restraining order was determined to be

“Unfounded.”]

5. 2005-0074 - As the complainant Fresno County Public

Defender Nancy Schultz made it clear during the issuance of the

jaywalking citation against her by Defendant Twedt that she knew

about ongoing litigation between Twedt and the Louens, the Court

ORDERS the content of this file produced to Plaintiff, including

all investigation notes, except for the findings and conclusions of

the Internal Affairs Officers. [The findings and conclusions re:

the allegation to report a complaint to a supervisor was determined

to be Unfounded.” The allegation of Defendant exhibiting

unprofessional conduct by voicing his personal opinion to a citizen

while writing a citation was deemed to be “Sustained.” And, the

allegation of failure to use good judgment by failing to properly

identify his immediate supervisor when asked to do so by Ms.

Schultz to whom Officer Twedt was issuing a citation was determined

to be “Sustained.” The Defendant received a Letter of Reprimand

which was placed in his personnel file.]

////

///

//

/

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 183 Filed 12/21/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

CONCLUSION

As the Court is unaware of what documents are already in

Plaintiff’s counsel’s possession, counsel are hereby ORDERED to

meet and confer regarding this Order to determine what will be

produced and what need not be produced. Any and all production

pursuant to this Order shall be completed by January 8, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 183 Filed 12/21/06 Page 7 of 7