Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01338/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01338-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 

BOBBY DARRELL JOHNSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SHASTA COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1338-KJM-EFB 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 The parties to this action have submitted a stipulation for an order compelling the 

California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to produce certain information sought by a subpoena. 

ECF No. 110. The DOJ has not signed the stipulation nor has it submitted any filing informing 

the court as to its position on the matter. Further, the parties’ stipulation indicates that the 

California Department of Justice has objected to the production of the information, but has 

informed the parties that it will comply with a court order requiring production. 

 In light of the objection and the absence of any filing on behalf of the DOJ on the matter, 

and subject to an approval by the district judge of an extension of the discovery cutoff date, the 

parties shall file, pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230, an appropriate motion to compel 

compliance with the subpoena and notice it before the undersigned for hearing. The motion shall 

be served on the California Attorney General. As required by Local Rule 230(c), the California 

Attorney General shall file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. 

Case 2:14-cv-01338-KJM-EFB Document 115 Filed 12/15/15 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

 Further, it is recommended that the discovery cutoff date of December 18, 2015, be 

extended for the limited purpose of resolving this matter. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 15, 2015. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01338-KJM-EFB Document 115 Filed 12/15/15 Page 2 of 2