Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02007/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02007-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

15cv2007-DMS-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Cindy Michelle Hahn, an individual, et al,

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Carlsbad, et al,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15cv2007-DMS-BGS

ORDER DENYING JOINT 

STIPULATION FOR IN CAMERA 

REVIEW OF CONFIDENTIAL 

DOCUMENTS

On August 2, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation for In Camera Review of 

Confidential Documents. (See ECF No. 54.) The parties in essence have done an end 

run around the Court’s chambers’ rules regarding discovery disputes. The Court only 

agrees to review documents In Camera after all the discovery procedures have been 

complied with, including the proper propounding of documents requests, the filing of 

appropriate privilege log and following the procedures set forth in Hampton v. City of 

San Diego, 147 F.R.D. 227 (S.D. Cal. 1993) if applicable, and then following the 

procedures set forth for discovery disputes in the Court’s chambers’ rules. The parties 

have not done so. Therefore, their Joint Stipulation is DENIED without prejudice to 

bring the dispute after compliance with the pertinent Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-02007-DMS-BGS Document 55 Filed 08/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

15cv2007-DMS-BGS

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

and the Court’s chambers’ rules regarding discovery disputes.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 12, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02007-DMS-BGS Document 55 Filed 08/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2