Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02321/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02321-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVY ANDERSON and DAVID JOHNSON,

Plaintiffs, CIV. S-05-2321 LKK GGH PS

vs.

CITY OF DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This matter came on calendar May 24, 2007, for further discovery hearing. 

Plaintiffs Anderson and Johnson appeared in pro se. Defendants were represented by Douglas

Thorn and Bruce Kilday. Plaintiffs’ former counsel Jeffrey Fletcher was also present. After

hearing, the court makes the following orders.

At this court’s previous hearing on April 19, 2007, plaintiffs were ordered to

produce all outstanding discovery to defendants in court on May 24 , including any discovery th

which might be in former counsel Fletcher’s possession. Of particular note was an original

videotape which plaintiffs still had not produced to defendants. Plaintiffs were ordered to

produce this discovery in order to avoid sanctions previously requested by defendants. 

At the hearing, Mr. Fletcher turned over a box of materials to plaintiffs in court,

representing that it constituted everything in his possession which related to this case. Plaintiffs

Case 2:05-cv-02321-LKK -GGH Document 80 Filed 05/30/07 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

2

then conceded that they had the original videotape in their possession at home, and had not

turned it over to defendants or produced it in court, in violation of this court’s April 24, 2007

order. Also complicating matters was defendants’ representation that plaintiffs’ interrogatory

responses did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that plaintiffs had not

made initial disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. 

Plaintiffs were previously warned that failure to comply with the April 24, 2007

order and their discovery obligations would result in severe sanctions, including the possibility of

dismissal of this case. Although plaintiffs will be given one last opportunity to comply with

certain discovery obligations, defendants may thereafter bring a motion if plaintiffs’ production is

not satisfactory.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs shall produce the original videotape previously requested by

defendants in discovery, to defense counsel’s office by 2:00 p.m. on May 24, 2007. Defendants

shall then make a copy of the original and return the original to plaintiffs forthwith.

2. After reviewing the box of case materials produced in court by their former

counsel, plaintiffs shall produce all discovery not previously turned over to defendants within

five calendar days of the May 24, 2007 hearing. This discovery shall be accompanied by a

written response outlining the discovery being produced and the requests to which it is

responsive, and shall be signed under penalty of perjury. Plaintiffs are directed to follow Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 34 and E. D. Local Rule 34-250.

3. Plaintiffs shall re-write their interrogatory responses, and produce to

defendants within five calendar days of the May 24 hearing. Responses shall be in compliance th

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 and E. D. Local Rule 33-250.

DATED: 5/30/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076/Anderson2321.dsy

Case 2:05-cv-02321-LKK -GGH Document 80 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2