Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03383/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03383-11/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 initial footage submitted by plaintiffs as Exhibit 17(a) is lengthy and does not identify

which plaintiffs are depicted. Defendants have objected to the edited video submitted by plaintiffs as

Exhibit 17(b) on June 27, 2007. Although that video does identify some plaintiffs, in some instances

the video appears to switch from plaintiff to plaintiff without indication. Moreover, Exhibit 17(b) does

not show all alleged instances of excessive force. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA BATES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT CHIEF ARATA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-3383 SI

ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER

SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE

On June 27, 2007, the Court heard argument on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In

order to evaluate plaintiffs’ excessive force claims, the Court must view the relevant video footage. The

footage submitted thus far does not identify the plaintiffs or the situations depicted.1 The Court directs

the parties to meet and confer in order to jointly provide the Court with video footage that includes all

instances of alleged excessive force claimed in the Third Amended Complaint. The parties must agree

upon and affirm for the Court which plaintiff appears in which section of the video, and which event

that section depicts (e.g. cell extraction). In the event that video footage of an alleged instance of

excessive force is unavailable, the parties should so inform the Court. In all other instances, the parties

should submit video clips that are clearly marked with the name of the plaintiff and the event depicted.

 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to submit clearly marked clips of video footage

from County Jail No. 9 as set forth below:

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 94 Filed 08/07/07 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

1. Jessica Bates: cell extraction and sitting in wheelchair after cell extraction

2. Helia Rasti: fingerprinting

3. Lamont Allen: fingerprinting

4. Kristen Brydum: fingerprinting

5. James Connell: cell extraction, walking to medical screening and fingerprinting

6. Gregory Dervin: cell extraction and fingerprinting

7. Emily Magner: during cell extraction of Abigail Wing and cell extraction of Ms. Utter

8. Christopher Scheets: cell extraction, ID processing, walking to nursing station,

fingerprinting and walking back to holding cell

9. Lorena Silverman: cell extraction

10. Hannah Sorensen: walking towards scale and fingerprinting

11. Brent Sovik: cell extraction and fingerprinting

12. Jeremy Spafford: cell extraction, walking through parking lot to booking and search in

holding cell

13. Jonathan Stribling-Uss: cell extraction and while in holding cell with defendant Waters

III before fingerprinting

14. Abigail Wing: cell extraction

If the parties contend the list set forth above does not accurately reflect the excessive force

allegations in the Third Amended Complaint, they should notify the Court after conferring with each

other. The Court ORDERS that the parties submit the requested evidence by September 4, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03383-SI Document 94 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 2