Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556-16/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-REC-SMS

ORDER CLARIFYING COURT’S

ORDER OF NOVEMBER 14, 2006

(Doc. 164)

This Court received a copy of plaintiff’s notice of motion and

motion for reconsideration or clarification of the November 14,

2006, order re: motion to compel personnel records of defendant

Brian Twedt (Doc. 167). Relying on Eastern District Local Rule

78-230(k), plaintiff seeks the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger’s

reconsideration and/or clarification of this Court’s ruling. In

the interest of judicial economy and efficiency, it appears prudent

that the undersigned clarify, and correct, her own order. 

Thereafter, it should be obvious that no hearing need be held

before Judge Wanger as noticed for December 18, 2006.

This Court has reread the entire transcript of the March 3,

2006, hearing and makes the following clarifications, mindful of

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 170 Filed 11/22/06 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

the content of the transcript itself as well as several informal

in-chambers as well as telephonic conferences with all counsel

regarding the issues at hand.

The Court agrees with plaintiff that the Order Re: Scope

(Doc. 164) is incomplete or otherwise vague given the argument and

the Court’s intended rulings of March 3, 2006. It is paragraph 1., 

appearing on page 3, lines 10-14, that is at issue in plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration/clarification. That is the only matter

that needs to be addressed and for which no further judicial time

need be expended. 

As set forth in her motion for reconsideration/ clarification,

“ [P]laintiff made clear during the March 3 hearing, see Doc. No.

135, pp. 9-15, she sought to compel discovery of Officer Twedt’s

personnel and internal affairs files primarily to support her

Monell claims against the City of Fresno, rather than Officer

Twedt’s individual liability.”

Argued by plaintiff’s counsel Kevin Little, at page 15, lines

18-22, “The only liability aspect of this case when it gets to

trial is going to be whether or not the city is also liable, and

that issue is based very much on how the city failed consistently

to intervene and supervise and monitor and check and not terminate

this very, very dangerous man.”

While the Court did say that she would rethink her intended

ruling in light of the oral argument presented, and perhaps broaden

the scope of the discovery required to be presented for in camera

review, she did not say, as plaintiff’s counsel sets forth in the

herein pleadings at page 2, lines 26-28 that “...she anticipated

receiving and reviewing all internal affairs complaints pertaining

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 170 Filed 11/22/06 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

to Officer Twedt, whether he was the main focus of the

investigation or not.” Quite to the contrary, what the Court said

was, “But if he is a tangential officer and it has nothing to do

whatsoever with anything directly related to his services - - well, 

I’ve already been through that. You get my point.” That comment

was a reference to what the Court said earlier in the March 3,

2006, hearing, page 5, lines 15-22, “There’s no way this Court is

going to pour through, for example, a lengthy IA investigation

regarding an officer-involved shooting wherein Officer Twedt was

simply on the scene or was the first responding officer or even

wrote a report about something that was tangential to the actual

shooting. I can’t imagine how it would be discoverable, or

certainly, relevant to this action.”

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the City of Fresno

present for in camera review Officer Twedt’s complete personnel

file, any and all IA files that relate to any investigation and/or

findings and conclusions regarding plaintiff herein, Holly Louen,

or any such investigations regarding plaintiff’s husband, Mr.

Louen, or any such investigations regarding plaintiff’s mother,

Diane Meikle, or any such investigations regarding plaintiff’s

personal friend and attorney at law, Laura Guzman-McGill. 

Further, it is hereby ORDERED that the City of Fresno present

for in camera review any and all IA investigations involving

defendant Officer Twedt wherein the allegations of unlawful acts

and/or unprofessional conduct directly against Officer Twedt

include violating department policy with respect to reckless use of

his automobile, taking or stealing property during a probation

search without authorization, making off-color and/or inappropriate

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 170 Filed 11/22/06 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

comments in front of or to his colleagues in the workplace for

which he was reprimanded, retaliatory actions against fellow

officers, and any and all investigations conducted regarding

Officer Twedt’s alleged dishonesty, temper, excessive force, or 

falsification of reports, if any, regardless of whether the

investigations are internal due to complaints from within the

Fresno City Police Department or made from citizens.

Documentation relating to this Order shall be produced

directly to the chambers of Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on or

before December 8, 2006 by 4:00 p.m., to be coordinated with either

Courtroom Deputy Harriet Herman at (559) 499-5692 -OR- Judicial

Assistant Frances Robles at (559) 499-5690. All other orders set

forth in the Order Re: Scope remain in full force and effect.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 170 Filed 11/22/06 Page 4 of 4