Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02056/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02056-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff claims a Deputy Sheriff assaulted her under color of law and while he was on duty.

On November 19, 2015, the Court conducted an informal telephonic conference with counsel 

related to the subpoenas issued by County to Plaintiff’s past employers, to a school she attended and to 

the Kern County Probation Department. Plaintiff contended the records are not relevant given that she 

is not making a wage claim. Defendants assert the records would assist their expert in developing his 

opinion related to Plaintiff’s psychiatric injury which she claims were caused by the underlying 

events.

At the informal conference, counsel agreed that the records would be produced to the Court to 

conduct an in camera review.1 All agreed that in the event the Court finds records that should be 

disclosed, it will schedule a further telephonic conference with counsel before they are provided to the 

 

1

Plaintiff may choose to have a copy of the records produced to her counsel at the same time—at her expense.

JANE DOE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-02056 AWI JLT 

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC 

CONFERENCE RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

(Doc. 42)

Case 1:13-cv-02056-DAD-JLT Document 44 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 2
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

defense. In the event the Court finds no records that could bear on the expert’s opinions, it will issue 

an order broadly outlining its findings and agreeing that the subpoenas should be quashed. 

In advance of the Court’s review, County may provide the Court a brief summary of the type 

of information it is seeking from the records that would assist the expert. However, if County chooses 

not to do this, the Court will review the records while keeping in mind County’s stated purpose for 

obtaining them. Thus, the Court will look for records that demonstrate past emotional or psychiatric 

issues or which could provide a “baseline”2for the expert’s opinions as to the extent of injury caused 

by the underlying events. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. No later than November 23, 2015, counsel SHALL submit a joint letter to the 

deposition officer and the recipients of the subpoenas, requiring the records to be gathered and 

produced as quickly as possible but no later than December 11, 2015;

2. No later than November 30, 2015, counsel for Defendants MAY, but are not required 

to, lodge a letter brief to the Court via email to JLTOrders@caed.uscourts.gov—copied to Plaintiff’s 

counsel—outlining the information they are seeking from the records that would assist their expert(s);

3. If after conducting the in camera review, the Court finds no disclosable records, it will 

issue an order explaining its rationale for its determination;

4. If after conducting the in camera review, the Court finds disclosable records, it will 

schedule a telephonic conference with counsel prior to disclosure of the records.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 By this, the Court understands that if the records demonstrate past emotional or psychiatric conditions or abnormal

difficulties in social interaction—regardless of the existence of a diagnosis—these records will be produced.

Case 1:13-cv-02056-DAD-JLT Document 44 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2