Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00554-8/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON JEROME MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0554 DAD PS

ORDER

This matter came before the court on February 20, 2015, for the hearing of defendants’ 

motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 37.) Attorney Kelly Trujillo appeared on behalf of the 

defendants and plaintiff Leon Jerome Martin appeared on his own behalf.

Upon consideration of the arguments on file and those made at the hearing, and for the 

reasons set forth on the record at that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants December 19, 2014 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 37) is 

denied in part and granted in part as stated on the record at the February 20, 2015 hearing; 

2. On or before April 17, 2015, defendants shall produce to plaintiff all responsive 

documents for the prior seven years, as ordered in the court’s December 10, 2014 order, and an 

additional three years of limited responsive documents consisting of any complaints of excessive

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 45 Filed 02/23/15 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

force and the official resolution of those complaints1;

3. This order is without prejudice to plaintiff moving to compel additional 

documents related to three year period of limited document production after plaintiff receives 

defendants’ production; and

4. Within seven days of the date of this order each party shall file a proposed 

amended schedule for the remainder of this action.

Dated: February 20, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.consent\martin0554.oah.022015.docx

 

1

 The court’s December 10, 2014 order also ordered defendants to file a proposed stipulated 

protective order and serve a copy of that proposed stipulated protective order on the plaintiff. 

Defendants have not yet complied with that order. Accordingly, defendants shall file a proposed 

stipulated protective order and serve a copy of that document on the plaintiff forthwith. If 

plaintiff objects to any portion of the proposed stipulated protective order, plaintiff shall file those 

objections within fourteen days of being served with the copy of the proposed stipulated 

protective order.

Case 2:14-cv-00554-AC Document 45 Filed 02/23/15 Page 2 of 2