Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00800/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00800-6/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00800-MEJ 

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 74

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 74. 

Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ Motion, primarily relying on the Declaration of Renardo Williams. 

See Williams Decl., Dkt. No. 104-4. Defendants dispute the admissibility of this Declaration at 

trial and the Court’s consideration of it at summary judgment. See Mot. 14-15; Reply at 5-6, Dkt. 

No. 106. Plaintiff’s Opposition argues that Mr. Williams’ Declaration may be admissible under 

Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) as a statement against interest by an unavailable witness; 

however, it is unclear what efforts, if any, Plaintiff has taken to locate Mr. Williams or to procure 

his testimony. Opp’n at 7, Dkt. No. 104. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file a declaration by July 1, 

2015 describing his attempts, if any, to locate Mr. Williams and to obtain discovery from him, as 

well as what, if any, possible leads remain to locating him. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00800-MEJ Document 108 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 1