Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02467/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02467-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Asberry
Plaintiff
City of Sacramento
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant.

CIV. S-04-2467 LKK PAN

ORDER 

—NFN—

 Plaintiff was employed by the City of Sacramento as a

sanitation worker in September 1992. He was terminated in

September 1999 but reinstated in March 2000 when the EEOC found

defendant had discriminated against plaintiff based upon a

disability. Plaintiff then filed a civil action claiming damages

for discrimination. December 16, 2004, one or two days before

the jury returned a verdict in his favor, defendant again

terminated plaintiff, this time because he allegedly had not

disclosed on his job application two prior felony convictions. 

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 45 Filed 07/12/05 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

2

He sued again, alleging the December 2004 termination was in

retaliation for pressing his civil damages claim in court. He

alleged the grounds for the second termination were pretextual. 

In support he alleged his supervisor in the Sanitation Department

knew of his criminal record “years prior” and that the Sanitation

Department employed “several other employees with felony

records.” Complaint ¶ 6.

 Plaintiff requested defendant produce personnel records of

anyone with a criminal conviction who worked for defendant during

the past ten years. Defendant declined and plaintiff moved for

an order compelling production of the records. At the hearing

June 8, 2005, discussion quickly focused upon “three sanitation

employees whom plaintiff believes have criminal records.” When

counsel for defendant referred to “these three employees

regarding any past criminal convictions”, the court said

plaintiff should be permitted “to look at the entire personnel

files of anyone with a criminal conviction.” Transcript pp. 2-6.

The court also ordered, however, that plaintiff could disclose

the content of those files to no one except pursuant to further

order of the court obtained pursuant to duly noticed motion.

 Thereafter, plaintiff moved for an order enforcing the June

8 order and defendant moved for an order clarifying it. 

Plaintiff construed the order as requiring defendant to produce

the personnel records of all City employees convicted of any

crime. That was not the court’s intention and there has never

been any demonstration how such records would be relevant to

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 45 Filed 07/12/05 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

3

plaintiff’s claims. 

 Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is denied and defendant’s

request is granted. Defendant’s obligation under the June 8,

2005, order was to produce the personnel records of all

Sanitation Department employees with criminal convictions.

 So ordered.

Dated: July 11, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 45 Filed 07/12/05 Page 3 of 3