Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556-23/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Holly Louen
Plaintiff
Brian Twedt
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLY LOUEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

)

FRESNO POLICE OFFICER BRIAN )

TWEDT; THE CITY OF FRESNO, )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04-cv-06556-OWW-SMS

INFORMATIONAL ORDER AND

ADDENDUM TO COURT ORDER

OF DECEMBER 21, 2006

(Doc. 184)

During preparation of a June 21, 2007 Order re: Defendant City

of Fresno’s Motion For Protective Order (Docs. 214, 219), the Court

became aware of a matter the Court had thought she clarified. 

Specifically, Defendant City of Fresno filed a Request For

Clarification Regarding the Court’s December 21, 2006 Order Re: In

Camera Review of Brian Twedt’s Records on January 2, 2007 (Doc.

184). As it was not noticed as a motion and there was no direct

response from Plaintiff Holly Louen but rather the filing of

Plaintiff’s own Motion For Reconsideration of the Court’s December

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 221 Filed 06/21/07 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

Editorially, a review of this Motion calendared for Judge Wanger’s 1

consideration, reveals something that is of concern to this Court: Of the

several entries in Plaintiff’s motion referring to “...the Court’s December 21

Order [making] no mention of this,” Plaintiff’s counsel apparently is in

possession of copies of documents, perhaps produced in the state court action,

which were not included among those submitted to this Court for review. If all

or some of these documents were produced and this Court simply missed them,

which is unlikely, it was unintentional, not meant to indicate that any or all

of them are not discoverable.

2

21, 2006 Order (Doc. 183) , the issue of a protective order 1

regarding any and all production pursuant to the Court’s 12/21/06

Order was inadvertently missed.

It always was the intent of the undersigned to order a

protective order in conjunction with and related to the production

of copies of the records made available to the Court for review and

which portions of said records were ordered produced. In Defendant

City’s Request For Clarification mention is made of Plaintiff’s

counsel’s objection to the signing of a protective order relating

to the production of certain records of Officer Twedt. That option

would not have been at time of hearing and thereafter pursuant to

an order, nor now, an option. The Court should have ordered such a

protective order in conjunction with her December 21, 2006 Order

but neglected to do so.

Inasmuch as Defendant City included a Proposed Protective

Order Regarding Personnel and Internal Records, which proposed

order appears to de rigueur/boilerplate, used in very like form in

many cases similar to the herein matter, the Court issues the

following addendum to her order of December 21, 2006: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Proposed Protective Order lodged

with the Request For Clarification on January 2, 2007 (Doc. 184-4)

is adopted and signed by the Court, to be filed simultaneously

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 221 Filed 06/21/07 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

herewith. Counsel for Defendant City of Fresno is DIRECTED to

retrieve the records presented to the Court for in camera review as

soon as possible by coordinating with Judicial Assistant, Frances

Robles, at 499-5690.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 221 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 3