Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00959/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00959-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

*E-filed 1/12/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

STEPHEN LEAL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OFFICER K. SIEGEL, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case No. C05-00959 JW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Re: Docket No. 87

 Plaintiff Stephen Leal brings this excessive force civil rights action against the City of

San Jose, the County of Santa Clara, and various law enforcement and correctional officers. He

claims that he was assaulted in the booking area of the county jail by several defendant officers,

and, as a result, sustained personal injuries. He also alleges that the officers attempted to cover

up their wrongdoing by misreporting the incident.

Plaintiff now moves to compel production of documents containing names of

individuals who previously filed complaints against the same officers involved in the present

matter. The motion is currently set for hearing on January 16, 2007, but the court now deems it

appropriate for determination without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

The court heard plaintiff's first motion to compel on September 12, 2006. One of the

topics addressed in that motion was the production of documents pertaining to prior citizen

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 93 Filed 01/12/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 complaints against the defendant officers concerning use of force. After conducting an in

camera review, the court ordered on October 3, 2006 that those citizen complaint files should

be produced to plaintiff, but with "third-party names and identifying information redacted." 

Plaintiff now contends that the court did not intend that the names of complaining witnesses 

would be redacted, and seeks an order compelling defendants to supply those names.

Plaintiff wishes to know the names of the civilians who complained about officer

behavior so that he can interview them and develop evidence to better support his contention

that the poor treatment he allegedly received is part of a larger pattern of misconduct. Plaintiff

argues that the court intended only to protect the privacy of third parties such as officers who

are not involved in the current litigation, not the privacy of complaining witnesses. He argues

in the alternative that, even if the court originally intended for complaining witness names to be

redacted, the court should reconsider and allow plaintiff to know the names and addresses of

previous arrestees assaulted in the booking area by the same officers.

Plaintiff's characterization of the court's intent is mistaken. The court did intend to

approve redaction of complaining witness names. The privacy rights of those people, who are

not parties or witnesses in the present matter, outweigh plaintiff's desire to track them down and

interview them. To the extent that plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's earlier order,

such a request is both procedurally and substantively deficient. See Civil Local Rule 7-9(a)-(b). 

Finally, the court denies plaintiff's request for attorney fees as unmerited and

procedurally defective. See Civil Local Rules 7-8 and 37-3. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/12/07 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 93 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY

MAILED TO:

Louis Patrick Dell louis.p.dell@att.net 

Sean Erenstoft sean@erenstoft.com, push4ward@aol.com 

Nora Valerie Frimann cao.main@sanjoseca.gov, Brande.Gex@sanjoseca.gov 

Clifford S. Greenberg cao.main@ci.sj.ca.us 

Lisa Herrick cao.main@sanjoseca.gov 

Michael L. Rossi michael.rossi@cco.co.scl.ca.us, 

John L. Winchester , III john.winchester@cco.sccgov.org 

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up

for e-filing.

Dated: 1/12/07 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-00959-JW Document 93 Filed 01/12/07 Page 3 of 3