Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01812/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01812-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

On August 8, 2016, the Court conducted an informal conference related a discovery dispute. 

(Doc. 43) At the conference, counsel agreed that the records would be produced from the CA State 

Personnel Board, related to Mr. Brown’s employment with the CDCR, and records produced by the 

City of Wasco to the Court to conduct an in camera review. 

The Court has conducted the review of the records from the CA State Personnel Board which 

is made up on the hearing officer’s decision and the determination of the Board. The determination by 

the Board is nearly entirely boilerplate with little detail related to Mr. Brown. On the other hand, the 

hearing officer’s decision details the evidence presented and her conclusions. Notably, the description 

of the evidence, including the hearing officer’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to 

link protected activity to alleged retaliation, conforms to the testimony given by Mr. Brown at his 

deposition.

The Court finds that there is nothing in the record from the CA State Personnel Board that 

DANNY BROWN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

AUBREY WIMBERLY,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01812 JLT 

ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW OF 

RECORDS PRODUCED BY THE CA STATE 

PERSONNEL BOARD

Case 1:14-cv-01812-JLT Document 44 Filed 08/23/16 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

bears on Mr. Brown’s claim for emotional distress damages. In addition, the Court finds that there is 

nothing in the record that could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the Court 

ORDERS:

1. The documents produced by the State Personnel Board need not be produced to the 

defendants and the subpoena duces tecum is QUASHED.

2. No later than September 9, 2016, plaintiff’s counsel SHALL retrieve from the Clerk 

of the Court at the United States Courthouse, located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA, the copy of 

the records produced by the CA State Personnel Board.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01812-JLT Document 44 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 2