Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06371/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06371-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORLANDO JAVIER GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06371-OWW-SMS

ORDER RE: IN CAMERA REVIEW OF

PEACE OFFICER PERSONNEL FILES

-and- VACATING SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Date: 3/21/06

Time: 10:00am

Ctrm: 7 ~ 6th Floor

Judge: Sandra M. Snyder (SMS)

On or about January 25, 2006, this Court signed a

stipulation and order regarding in camera review of peace officer

personnel files (doc. 23). Thereafter, on February 1, 2006, a

banker’s box of various and assorted personnel and internal

affairs files was delivered to the court by Senior Deputy City

Attorney and Legal Advisor to the Fresno Police Department,

Melissa White. There was no further communication, other than

the e-filing of the stipulation, from either defense counsel

James J. Arendt and/or plaintiff’s counsel Jacob M. Weisberg

regarding the scope of the in camera investigation required.

//

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Helpful to an understanding of what this Court is

characterizing as a “communication disconnect” is the following:

A. It is this Court’s custom and practice, at her own

scheduling conferences, to direct counsel in civil rights

excessive force cases to agree to disagree about discovery and

the need to review peace officer personnel files and/or agency

internal investigation files regarding named defendants. If

counsel agree to do so without noticed motion, any such files may

be delivered to this Court’s chambers for in camera review for an

order regarding production of documents pursuant to a protective

order that counsel will have agreed upon and filed. 

Counsel in this case, obviously familiar with this

Court’s practice, arranged to have files delivered to chambers

through courtroom deputy Harriet Herman, who simply confirmed

that “the files” should be brought to chambers. Lost in Ms.

Herman’s assumption regarding delivery was the fact that this

Court had had no conversation with counsel in this case or had

any idea of the depth and scope of review based on knowledge of

the case from either (1) a conversation with counsel at the

scheduling conference, which is the usual contact this Court has

regarding such a forthcoming review, or (2) a joint letter from

counsel, or (3) a joint informal telephonic conversation with

counsel indicating the records are on their way and what is

expected of the Court.

In this instance, the Court did not schedule the case;

the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger did. And, in fact, as there have

been no discovery disputes to date in this case, this Court has

had no contact with this case whatsoever. Further, the

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 5
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

stipulation, filed on January 25, 2006, is woefully lacking in

any direction:

The Court will review the records and notify

defense counsel (under seal) of the Court’s

intentions with respect to the production of

documents it deems discoverable pursuant to

applicable case and statutory law.

In an effort to get a feeling for which defendants were

alleged to have done what, this Court reviewed the scheduling

conference order filed March 31, 2005 (doc. 16). Based strictly

on that as a familiarizing document, this Court is extremely

concerned about what counsels’ expectations are regarding the

various named defendants and the discovery sought. For example,

there are several officers named in the first amended complaint,

filed March 17, 2005 (doc. 12), who apparently had no contact

with the plaintiff save and except they were at the scene of the

alleged incident. Before this Court reads the many and extensive

files presented, more direction than that provided as set forth

above will be required.

B. Acknowledging that the actions of the Court’s own staff

is an extension of the Court herself, nonetheless Ms. Herman

assumed the Court knew the records were on their way and knew

what counsel expected in the review. The records arrived without

Ms. Herman’s knowledge, and had no attached letter or court

order. The Court, confused, needing to do some research to even

glean the mission, and due to the press of other business, 

simply prioritized any review to take place at the Court’s

convenience, particularly since the Court had no say in the

timing of the informal production. However, due to a critical

need to have the original files returned immediately to Fresno

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 03/15/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Police Department Legal Counsel, Ms. White, the Court hereby

DIRECTS that the box be retrieved at Ms. White’s convenience

without the Court having reviewed the files pursuant to the

stipulation.

C. Counsel in this case, Mr. Weisberg and Mr. Arendt, are

DIRECTED to meet and confer regarding the depth and breadth of

the review being asked of the Court, and are ORDERED to put

together a joint letter and/or pleading setting forth their

positions. In fact, if the meet and confer results in counsel

being in disagreement as to what is potentially discoverable,

counsel are ORDERED to coordinate an informal conference with the

Court, to be held in chambers, in which this particular discovery

will be discussed.

D. Lastly, this Court places absolutely no responsibility

for the lack of information regarding these records with Senior

Deputy City Attorney and Fresno Police Department Legal Advisor

Melissa White. She has been extremely cooperative and

understanding with the Court, all the while in serious need of

the return of the files for other purposes. Her patience is very

much appreciated. In conversation with this Court, she has

agreed to return some or all of the files upon request. It

should be noted that the files produced are the original files,

and that the Fresno Police Department does not make copies of

files such as those presented for any purpose including civil

litigation in any court or for any other administrative use. 

In conclusion, the Court awaits further instruction from

counsel. In the meantime, the settlement conference, presently

set for March 21, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 on the

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 03/15/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Sixth Floor before this Court, is hereby VACATED without

prejudice, to be reset at a time that counsel confer with the

Court via conference call regarding this discovery issue as well

as other scheduling issues in the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06371-OWW -SMS Document 26 Filed 03/15/06 Page 5 of 5