Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00669/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00669-9/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

TYRONE EDWARD HICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0669 CKD PS (TEMP)

ORDER

On January 22, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered 

defendants to produce responsive discovery within thirty days subject to the court’s protective 

order issued that same day.

1

 (Dtk. Nos. 44 & 45.) On February 16, 2016, defendants filed an ex 

parte application seeking an order prohibiting non-party Frederick Cooley from viewing the

responsive discovery until defendants’ motion for a protective order against Frederick Cooley 

filed in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., No. 2:14-cv-1749 JAM AC can be heard on February 24, 

2016. (Dkt. No. 49.)

/////

/////

/////

 

1

The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. ' 636(c)(1). (Dkt. No. 25.)

Case 2:14-cv-00669-DB Document 52 Filed 02/18/16 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ February 16, 2016 ex parte application (Dkt. No. 49 ) is granted;

2

2. Frederick Cooley is temporarily prohibited from viewing the discovery produced by 

defendants in this action in response to the Court’s January 22, 2016 order;

3. If defendants’ motion in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., No. 2:14-cv-1749 JAM AC is 

denied, Frederick Cooley may view the discovery produced in compliance with the protective 

order issued by the court3; and

4. If defendants’ motion in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., No 2:14-cv-1749 JAM AC is 

granted, defendants shall have 14 days to file a notice of hearing a similar motion in this action 

before the undersigned. Defendants’ motion shall comply with Local Rule 251.4 

Dated: February 18, 2016

BVD\hicks0669.exparte.ord

 

2 As acknowledged by defendants’ in their application, this order does not alter defendants’ duty 

to produce the responsive discovery to the plaintiff in compliance with the court’s January 22, 

2016 order. (Defs.’ App. (Dkt. No. 49) at 4.)

3

 Having elected not to file a motion for a protective order in this action, the court does not 

anticipate that, having lost their motion in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., No. 2:14-cv-1749 

JAM AC, defendants would seek to delay this action and re-litigate this issue by filing a 

substantially similar motion. 

4

 In granting defendants’ ex parte application, plaintiff is informed that the court takes no view 

on the merits of defendants’ pending motion in Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., No. 2:14-cv-1749 

JAM AC.

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00669-DB Document 52 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 2