Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01751/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01751-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD KNIGHTEN, No. 2:15-CV-1751-TLN-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CITY OF ANDERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action. 

Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for sanctions (Doc. 31). A hearing was held on

October 19, 2016, before the undersigned in Redding, California. John Douglas Barr, Esq.,

appeared for plaintiff. Bruce Alan Kilday, Esq., appeared for defendants. After hearing oral

arguments from the parties, the matter was submitted. 

Defendants contend that plaintiff’s counsel has violated the court’s protective

orders in Haught v. City of Anderson, et al., 2:11-CV-1653-JAM-CMK, with respect to the use

of confidential information.1 

1 The Haught matter settled and was closed on January 5, 2016. 

1

Case 2:15-cv-01751-TLN-CMK Document 42 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 6
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

I. BACKGROUND

In the Haught case, the court entered three stipulated protective orders regarding

the use of confidential information disclosed through discovery. The first two orders govern the

use and disclosure of documents relating to certain Anderson Police Department officers (see

Docs. 41 and 85 in 2:11-CV-1653-JAM-CMK). A third order extends the prior orders to cover

confidential materials related to Officer Miller, a defendant in the Knighten action (see Doc. 90

in 2:11-CV-1653-JAM-CMK). With respect to disposition of confidential documents upon

termination of the Haught case, the parties agreed and the court ordered as follows:

Return/Destruction of Confidential Material. Upon final

termination of the Litigation, the Confidential Material, except for that

incorporated in pleadings, deposition transcripts, and the work product of

counsel, shall be destroyed or returned to CITY (emphasis added). 

II. DISCUSSION

In the pending motion, defendants argue that plaintiff’s counsel has violated the

protective orders by not destroying or returning confidential documents following termination of

the Haught matter in January 2016. Defendants speculate that confidential documents are being

used “. . .to attempt to bolster Mr. Knighten’s Monell claim against Defendant City of Anderson

in this case.” Defendants’ belief is based on plaintiff allegations of prior excessive force

complaints against Officer Miller set forth in paragraph 18 of the first amended complaint filed in

April 2016 (see Doc. 21 in 2:15-CV-1751-TLN-CMK). In paragraph 18, plaintiff alleges:

18. Prior to his assault on plaintiff KNIGHTEN, defendant

MILLER had been the subject of several excessive force complaints. In

spite of that fact, defendant CITY had advanced him in rank to Sergeant

and had made him the lead training officer. During the investigation into

the rape-kidnapping case, it came to light that much of the wrongful 

behavior was done by officers who were MILLER’s direct subordinates

while he was on duty. In spite of that, he remained a Sergeant and lead

training officer, making about $150,000.00 a year including overtime,

health insurance, and retirement. Defendant CITY has a small department

(less than 20 officers) so it is not plausible that he and other supervisors in

the department did not know about much of the misconduct. Still, nothing

2

Case 2:15-cv-01751-TLN-CMK Document 42 Filed 12/13/16 Page 2 of 6
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

was done to protect citizens from this out of control police force. 

Defendants note that the allegations of prior excessive force complaints against defendant Miller

were not contained in the original complaint filed in the Knighten action in August 2015, and

first appear in the amended complaint filed in April 2016 after confidential documents were

produced in October and November 2015 in the Haught case. 

Defendants seek: (1) an order requiring plaintiff’s counsel to return the

confidential documents; (2) an order striking any allegations in plaintiff’s first amended

complaint “. . .that were based upon or refer to the confidential materials”; and (3) an order

awarding attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing the motion. 

In opposition, plaintiff’s counsel argues:

1. Defendants’ counsel has precluded plaintiff’s counsel from returning the

confidential documents because not all confidential documents are

marked, they are mixed in with thousands of pages of other documents,

and defendants’ counsel has not responded to plaintiff’s counsel’s letter

seeking confirmation of which documents should be returned. 

2. Sanctions are not warranted because no confidential materials were used in

the Knighten case.

3. The rules of professional conduct require plaintiff’s counsel to maintain

client files, which in the Haught case include the confidential materials,

for five years.

4. Plaintiff’s counsel must retain the confidential materials to cross-check

that none is used.

Return of Confidential Documents – Because the protective orders require

plaintiff’s counsel to either return or destroy the confidential documents, plaintiff’s non-return of

documents does not in and of itself violate the protective orders. 

While plaintiff’s counsel has not violated the Haught protective orders in the

manner suggested by defendants in their motion, plaintiff’s counsel has nonetheless violated the

protective orders. Specifically, it is clear from plaintiff’s counsel’s filings that he has neither

returned nor destroyed the confidential materials following resolution of the Haught case. In

fact, plaintiff’s counsel argues that he must be permitted to retain these documents essentially in

3

Case 2:15-cv-01751-TLN-CMK Document 42 Filed 12/13/16 Page 3 of 6
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

perpetuity. The court finds plaintiff counsel’s arguments unpersuasive. 

Plaintiff’s counsel cites California Rule of Professional Conduct 4-100(B)(3) for

the proposition that he must maintain his files in the Haught case – including the confidential

materials – for five years. Rule 4-100(B)(3), however, requires attorneys to maintain “complete

records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client. . . .” and to preserve such records

for five years. The rule does not require plaintiff’s counsel to retain the confidential materials. 

Further, plaintiff’s counsel made no such objection at the time he signed the stipulated protective

orders. 

Plaintiff’s counsel also argues that he must be permitted to retain the confidential

materials as the only means to cross-check that such materials are not used outside the Haught

case in violation of the protective orders. According to plaintiff’s counsel, during the course of

the Haught case he “had to get all of the pertinent information into his head” and he “cannot

separate the protected from the non-protected if he does not have the protected information to use

to remind him what not to disclose.” This argument is unpersuasive. All information has a

source which counsel must know for him to be aware of the information in the first place. Thus,

counsel should know what information was derived from non-protected sources without

reference to the confidential materials. Counsel’s apparent inability to keep his files in order is

not justification for violation of the protective orders. 

Because plaintiff’s counsel has neither returned nor destroyed the confidential

materials produced in the Haught case despite termination of that case, he is in violation of the

court’s protective orders and will be sanctioned. Counsel will also be required to return and/or

destroy the confidential materials, maintain no copies of such materials, and so declare under

penalty of perjury. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

4

Case 2:15-cv-01751-TLN-CMK Document 42 Filed 12/13/16 Page 4 of 6
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

Striking Paragraph 18 – Defendants contend that plaintiff’s reference to prior

excessive force complaints against defendant Miller in the first amended complaint indicate a use

of confidential materials, in violation of the protective orders. As plaintiff notes, however,

defendant Miller admitted at his deposition in the Haught case that prior excessive force

complaints had made against him. Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel has submitted his declaration in

which he states that he did not use any confidential materials in drafting the first amended

complaint. On this record, defendants cannot meet their burden of establishing that plaintiff’s

counsel used confidential materials outside the Haught case. 

Attorneys’ Fees – As a further sanction, defendants seek their attorneys’ fees

associated with bringing the instant motion. The court finds that an award of attorneys’ fees is

appropriate and will provide defendants’ counsel an opportunity to submit a declaration setting

forth reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

5

Case 2:15-cv-01751-TLN-CMK Document 42 Filed 12/13/16 Page 5 of 6
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

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Doc. 31) is granted;

2. Within 10 days of the date of this order, plaintiff’s counsel shall file a

declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, confirming that all confidential materials produced

in the Haught case have either been returned to defendants or destroyed;

3. A sanction in the amount of $750.00 is imposed on plaintiff’s counsel for

violation of the court’s protective orders, such sanction to be paid by counsel to the court within

10 days of the date of this order; 

4. Defendants’ counsel may submit, within 10 days of the date of this order, a

declaration supporting an award of attorneys’ fees. 

DATED: December 12, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 2:15-cv-01751-TLN-CMK Document 42 Filed 12/13/16 Page 6 of 6