Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04599/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04599-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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 Court additionally notes that Defendants failed to follow the usual procedure of

obtaining all parties’ consent for such meetings prior to making a request.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

MASTER CASE FILE

NO. C00-4599 TEH 

ORDER RE: LETTERS FILED ON

APRIL 1 AND APRIL 2, 2008

Upon careful consideration of the letters from Defendants and the Independent

Monitoring Team (“IMT”) filed on April 1 and April 2, 2008, the Court concludes that a

private meeting with the Oakland City Attorney and Chief of Police is unnecessary at this

time.1

 The filed correspondence makes clear Defendants’ position, as well as those of the

IMT and Plaintiffs, regarding the compensation issue. The Court will address the 30-day

extension issue at the next status conference, at which time Defendants may also raise any

concerns about the IMT’s opinions regarding the Internal Affairs Division. Letter briefs on

these issues are neither required nor encouraged.

In addition, the Court does not find filings such as the recent letters to be productive,

and the parties are advised that their first reaction to disputes with each other or the IMT

should not be to file a letter or to request an immediate meeting with the Court. If the Court

believes that responses to a filing, including a filing by the IMT, are warranted, it will request

them. Obviously, the Court can and must resolve material disputes and motions properly

filed before it. Its role, however, is not to mediate all points of disagreement – large or small

– among the parties or between the parties and the IMT. With the parties’ agreement, the

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 455 Filed 04/10/08 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

Nothing in this order is intended to change what has become the Court’s practice to

meet with the Chief of Police and City Administrator prior to each status conference, as long

as Defendants obtain consent from all parties in advance of each such meeting.

2

Court has entertained multiple requests for ex parte meetings in the past, but such meetings

will now only be granted in extraordinary circumstances.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/10/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:00-cv-04599-WHO Document 455 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 2