Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00669/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00669-8/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

TYRONE EDWARD HICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0669 CKD PS (TEMP)

ORDER

On January 22, 2016, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel and 

ordering defendants to produce responsive discovery within thirty days subject to the court’s 

protective order issued that same day.

1

 (Dtk. Nos. 44 & 45.) On February 17, 2016, defendants 

filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time to hear defendants’ motion for 

modification of the January 22, 2016 order and a stay of production pending the hearing of 

defendants’ motion. (Dkt. No. 50.) 

Therein, defendants assert that in preparing their production in compliance with the 

January 22, 2016 order, defendants “located a possibly responsive video that depicts an officer 

involved shooting,” however, that video depicts full frontal nudity of the non-party suspect and is 

subject to a protective order in a separate action. (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, defendants seek “to stay 

 

1

The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. ' 636(c)(1). (Dkt. No. 25.)

Case 2:14-cv-00669-DB Document 51 Filed 02/18/16 Page 1 of 3
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

the production of all documents until such time as that matter may be heard.” (Id. at 1.)

Rule 6(c)(1) allows a court to hear a motion on shortened time where a party has shown 

“good cause.” Local Rule 144(e) provides that an application to shorten time shall be 

accompanied by an affidavit of counsel setting forth the circumstances justifying the issuance of 

an order shortening time. Here, defendants’ counsel has submitted a declaration setting forth the 

circumstances justifying the issuance of an order shortening time and those circumstances 

demonstrate good cause for hearing defendants’ motion on shortened time.

However, it is clear that the only discovery in dispute is a single video. Accordingly, 

there is no reason to stay the production of all responsive discovery as defendants request. 

Counsel’s declaration asserts that the court “directed that I file a ‘request to hear the motion on 

shortened time, as well as a request to stay production pending the resolution of the motion’” in 

an informal communication. (Dkt. No. 50-1 at 2.) Informal communications can result in 

miscommunications. Based on defendants’ application, however, the court finds no reason to 

stay defendants’ entire production. 

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ February 17, 2016 ex parte application for an order shortening time and 

staying production (Dkt. No. 50) is granted in part; 

2. The hearing of defendants’ motion to modify the court’s January 22, 2016 order with 

respect to the video at issue is set for hearing before the undersigned on March 2, 2016, at 10:00 

a.m., in Courtroom No. 24;

3. Defendants shall file a brief statement addressing the nature of the parties’ dispute and 

supporting defendants’ arguments on or before February 24, 2016. Plaintiff may, but is not 

required to, file his own separate brief statement addressing his position also on or before 

February 24, 2016. 

4. Defendants production of the video at issue is stayed pending the resolution of 

defendants’ motion to modify; and 

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00669-DB Document 51 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5. Defendants shall produce all other responsive documents in compliance with the 

court’s January 22, 2016 order as currently scheduled. 

Dated: February 18, 2016

BVD\hicks0669.exparte2.ord

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00669-DB Document 51 Filed 02/18/16 Page 3 of 3