Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06771/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06771-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIKA RIVERA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

)

CITY OF MERCED, CITY OF )

MERCED POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

CITY OF MERCED POLICE OFFICER )

SCOTT SKINNER, CITY OF MERCED )

POLICE OFFICER RAY STERLING, )

CITY OF MERCED POLICE OFFICER )

VERNON WARNKE, CITY OF MERCED )

POLICE OFFICER DABNEY, COUNTY )

OF MERCED, COUNTY OF MERCED )

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY )

OF MERCED DISTRICT ATTORNEY )

BUREAU OF NARCOTICS ENFORCE- )

MENT SPECIAL AGENT SUPERVISOR )

ELOY ROMERO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04-cv-06771-SMS

ORDER VACATING HEARING RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AND

DENYING MOTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE (Doc. 55)

Date: 3/24/06

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Ctrm: 7 ~ 6th Floor

Judge: Sandra M. Snyder

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court. 

The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction for all

purposes (Doc. 48). Pending before this Court is plaintiff’s

motion to compel production of relevant evidence (Doc. 55). In

opposition to plaintiff’s motion, counsel for defendants, County of

Merced, Merced County Sheriff’s Department, and Vernon Warnke,

Case 1:04-cv-06771-SMS Document 60 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Terry L. Allen, Esq., filed a declaration in opposition to the

motion to compel production of evidence (Doc. 58). The declaration

of Norman Newhouse in reply to the opposition to compel production

of evidence was filed on March 15, 2006 (Doc. 59).

I. The Hearing on the Motion is Vacated

Pursuant to Rule 78-230(h) of the Local Rules of Practice

for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California, the Court finds that plaintiff’s motion to compel is a

matter that may appropriately be submitted upon the record and

briefs without oral argument.

Accordingly, the hearing on the motion, presently set for

March 24, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 on the Sixth Floor

before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate

Judge, is VACATED.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion Appears To Be Defective and Premature

Though served on all parties named in the amended

complaint (Doc. 38), the notice of motion addresses “Defendant

County of Merced and County of Merced District Attorney and Its

Attorney of Record” only. See notice of motion, page 2 (Doc. 55).

And, clearly stated in plaintiff’s points and authorities

supporting the motion to compel production of evidence, at page 3,

lines 10-12, “Plaintiff requests the Court to order defendant

district attorney to produce the black hooded sweatshirt for

testing to see if it can be determined whether plaintiff’s son ever

wore the sweatshirt.” In addition, plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees

and costs in conjunction with the necessity to bring this motion. 

There are two glaring errors in plaintiff’s motion: (1)

The Merced County District Attorney’s Office is not a specifically

Case 1:04-cv-06771-SMS Document 60 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 4
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

named party to this action nor does it have custody of the

sweatshirt in question (Docs. 38 & 58); and, (2) the party that

does have custody of the sweatshirt, The City of Merced, is not the

subject of plaintiff’s motion to compel - - nor should it be as it

is plain from The City of Merced’s response to plaintiff’s request

for production No. 2, set forth as an exhibit to Norman Newhouse’s

declaration in reply to Merced’s opposition to compel production of

evidence, “The City of Merced is attempting to arrange an

inspection of the black hooded sweatshirt with the Merced County

District Attorney’s office in light of chain of custody issues in

the criminal trial of Mr. Rivera. The City of Merced will meet and

confer with plaintiff [sic] counsel and all counsel to coordinate

the inspection once chain of custody issues are resolved with the

County of Merced District Attorney’s office.” See page -2- of City

of Merced’s responses to plaintiff’s request for production of

documents, set one, lines 16-22. 

The issue of the testing, or not, for DNA evidence from

the black hooded sweatshirt does not appear to be ripe for court

order: (1) It is not likely The City of Merced, The City of Merced

Police Department, the Merced Multi-Action Narcotic Task Force,

and/or The Merced County District Attorney’s Office would stipulate

and agree to release custody of an arguably critical item of

evidence prior to the criminal trial of Mr. Rivera; (2) It is not

likely this Court would so order, prior to the conclusion of any

criminal trial, absent a showing of extreme good cause and/or

prejudice if such an order were not forthcoming in the immediate

future; (3) It is not clear to this Court that, at the meet and

confer The City of Merced declared it will arrange with plaintiff’s

Case 1:04-cv-06771-SMS Document 60 Filed 03/23/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

counsel, a scraping or some such sample from the sweatshirt could

not be obtained for testing by plaintiff’s expert(s) without the

necessity for the relinquishing of custody of the entire

sweatshirt; and, (4) If plaintiff believes that by naming the

County of Merced in its first amended complaint, the District

Attorney’s Office is ipso facto a party in this case, authority

will need to be provided in that regard. 

III. Conclusion

It is therefore the ORDER of the court that plaintiff’s

motion to compel production of the black hooded sweatshirt is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If after the meet and confer between

counsel for the City of Merced, plaintiff, and other interested

counsel for named defendants, the issue of testing for DNA from the

sweatshirt is not resolved, this Court advises all counsel to

appear telephonically for an informal discovery conference with

this Court to attempt to resolve the dispute without need for any

further noticed motion(s).

Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and

costs is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06771-SMS Document 60 Filed 03/23/06 Page 4 of 4