Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03759/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03759-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD ASHKER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT HOREL, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C 05-03759 CW (EDL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ORDER DEFENDANTS TO

LODGE THE VIDEOTAPE

On November 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting the Court to Order Defendants to

Lodge the Videotape and Consider Supplemental Evidence. On December 3, 2007, Defendants filed

an opposition. This matter is appropriate for decision without receiving a reply from Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants must lodge the prison yard surveillance videotape viewed by

Dr. Sayre because the videotape “is to be used as evidence in plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’

dispositive motion and at trial,” and because Plaintiff believes that Dr. Sayre committed perjury. 

Plaintiff has already viewed this videotape. On at least three occasions over the past year, Plaintiff

has asked this Court to order Defendants to lodge the videotape. See Pl.’s Nov. 27, 2006 Reply

Brief in Support of Mot. for Prot. Order (docket number 85)l Pl.’s June 1, 2007 Mot. for Relief

(docket number 106); Pl.’s July 23, 2007 Reply in Support of Mot. for Relief (docket number 135). 

Neither this Court nor Judge Wilken has granted that relief. Plaintiff has made no showing of

changed circumstances that would warrant an order compelling Defendants to lodge the videotape. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting the Court to Order Defendants to Lodge the Videotape

(docket number 177) is denied. Plaintiff’s request that Judge Wilken consider supplemental

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 188 Filed 12/14/07 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

evidence on Plaintiff’s November 13, 2007 Motion for De Novo Review or on summary judgment

must be directed to her court in a proper pleading, not in a discovery motion directed to this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2007

_______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03759-CW Document 188 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 2