Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00282/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00282-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims 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

 Although counsel refers to this order as dated February 21, 2006, the date the order was 1

signed, the order issued February 22, 2006, the date it was docketed. The February 22, 2006 date

is the date this court considers the order effective.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

ex rel. BEVERLY ENGLUND,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0282 LKK JFM

vs.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On March 29, 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of possible error in the court’s order of

February 22, 2006. On April 14, 2006, third party California Medical Assistance Commission 1

(“CMAC”) filed its opposition. 

Plaintiff contends that this court’s order filed February 22, 2006 may have

inadvertently omitted specific reference to the production of audiotapes from CMAC. In its

underlying motion to compel production of documents sought via subpoena duces tecum,

plaintiff sought certain documents, audiotapes of CMAC closed sessions and emails. During the

hearing on the motion, counsel withdrew its request for emails. Plaintiff notes that the court’s

Case 2:04-cv-00282-LKK -JFM Document 149 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 3
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

order was silent on the issue of audiotapes, ordering production of “any paper documents

responsive to the subpoenas duces tecum.” (Order at 3.) 

CMAC opposes this request for an amended order arguing that the request is

untimely because plaintiff failed to seek reconsideration within ten days. Local Rule 72-303. 

Moreover, CMAC argues that the request lacks merit because the order clearly specified

production of only “paper documents.”

A review of the underlying motion to compel reflects plaintiff sought all

information responsive to the subpoena duces tecum, “including responsive information from the

years 2001 through the present and information that resides solely in electronic format (including

email).” (December 22, 2005 Motion at 2.) The joint statement filed prior to the hearing noted

that CMAC had agreed to produce confidential hardcopy documents and CMAC closed session

audio recordings for the period July 1, 1994 to January 1, 2002. (Id. at 21.) Counsel also noted

the audio recordings had been withheld by CMAC on two subsequent passages of the joint

statement. (Id. at 22, 24.)

Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a court may sua

sponte order relief from a court order where a clerical mistake arises from oversight or omission. 

It was not this court’s intent to omit from the order a provision that the closed session audio

recordings be produced. These audio recordings are clearly responsive to the subpoena duces

tecum. CMAC’s claims of privilege as to these audio recordings are overruled. CMAC will be

ordered to produce those audio recordings responsive to the underlying subpoena duces tecum

within ten days from the date of this order. Said production will be subject to the protective

order contained in this court’s February 22, 2006 order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The February 22, 2006 order is modified to add the following orders: 

a. Plaintiff’s December 22, 2005 motion to compel CMAC to produce

closed session audio recordings is granted. 

Case 2:04-cv-00282-LKK -JFM Document 149 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

b. Within ten days from the date of this order, CMAC shall produce all

closed session audio tapes responsive to the subpoena duces tecum.

c. All audio tapes produced are subject to a protective order and shall be

used only in connection with the conduct of this litigation. 

DATED: May 1, 2006.

1; englund.60a

Case 2:04-cv-00282-LKK -JFM Document 149 Filed 05/02/06 Page 3 of 3