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 - 

Patras et. al., v. City of Antioch, et. al., United States District Court CAND Case No.: CV-09-1891 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Kumin Sommers, LLP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIAZ PATRAS, MARYAM PATRAS and 

MARK PATRAS 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF ANTIOCH, OFFICER DESMOND 

BITTNER, SERGEANT MITCH 

SCHWITTERS, OFFICER W.N. DILLARD 

II, OFFICER STEVEN SOARES, CHIEF OF 

POLICE JAMES HYDE, and DOES 1-100 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO.: CV-09-1891 MMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 

OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR AN AWARD 

OF MONETARY SANCTIONS AS 

MODIFIED 

 

 On July 27, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. at the above-entitled Court located at 450 Golden Gate 

Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102, the parties appeared before Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte, 

United States Magistrate Judge on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents and 

an Award for Monetary Sanctions. Petra Bruggisser and Noah Blechman appeared on behalf of 

Defendants. Stephen Sommers appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. 

 After considering the submitted documents and oral argument, this Courted granted 

Plaintiffs’ motion in part and denied the motion in part. 

Case 3:09-cv-01891-MMC Document 36 Filed 08/06/10 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 - 

Patras et. al., v. City of Antioch, et. al., United States District Court CAND Case No.: CV-09-1891 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Kumin Sommers, LLP 

A. Plaintiffs’ request for Responses to Request for Production Numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5.

 Request for Production Number 2: 

 Any and all audio taped conversations between Defendant Officer Dillard and Defendant 

Officer Bittner regarding Section 8 Housing tenants. 

 GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court found that Defendants had 

not raised an “official information” privilege as such procedure outlined by Kelly v. City of San 

Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 668-673 (N.D.Cal. 1987). The Court weighed privacy rights of Section 8 

Housing tenants against Plaintiffs’ right to discover evidence regarding their individual, Monell

and associated claims. The Court found the privacy rights of tenants who rent from Plaintiffs do 

not outweigh the Plaintiffs’ right to discovery of evidence to support Plaintiffs’ individual, 

Monell and associated claims. However, the Court found that privacy rights of Section 8 tenants 

who do not rent from Plaintiffs do not trump Plaintiffs’ right to discovery of evidence to support 

Plaintiffs’ individual, Monell and associated claims. The Court further found that Plaintiffs’ 

unlimited timeframe for its request to be overbroad. 

 DEFENDANTS ARE HEREBY ORDERED to produce all audio taped conversations 

between Officers Dillard and Bittner from [June 1, 2007 through October 31, 2007], regarding 

Section 8 Housing tenants who rent from any of the Plaintiffs. 

 The Parties shall further meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs’ remaining request 

pertaining to audio taped conversations between Defendant Officer Dillard and Officer Bittner 

regarding other Section 8 Housing tenants that did not rent from any of the Plaintiffs.. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants produce an affidavit or declaration from a 

responsible official(s) within the agency with personal knowledge, under oath or penalty of 

perjury, which affirms that the agency conducted a diligent search for the evidence subject to this 

request and that such evidence has been produced, and explains the steps that were taken in 

conducting the search. 

Case 3:09-cv-01891-MMC Document 36 Filed 08/06/10 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 - 

Patras et. al., v. City of Antioch, et. al., United States District Court CAND Case No.: CV-09-1891 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Kumin Sommers, LLP 

 Request for Production Number 3:

 All DOCUMENTS relating to, regarding, referring to and/or describing any and all taped 

conversations between Defendant Officer Dillard and Defendant Officer Bittner regarding 

Section 8 Housing tenants. 

 GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court found that Defendants had 

not raised an “official information” privilege as such procedure outlined by Kelly v. City of San 

Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 668-673 (N.D.Cal. 1987). The Court weighed privacy rights of Section 8 

Housing tenants against Plaintiffs’ right to discover evidence regarding their individual, Monell

and associated claims. The Court found the privacy rights of tenants who rent from Plaintiffs do 

not outweigh the Plaintiffs’ right to discovery of evidence to support their individual, Monell and 

associated claims. However, the Court found that privacy rights of Section 8 tenants who do not 

rent from Plaintiffs do not trump Plaintiffs’ right to discovery of evidence to support their 

individual, Monell and associated claims. The Court further found that Plaintiffs’ unlimited 

timeframe for its request to be overbroad. 

 DEFENDANTS ARE HEREBY ORDERED to produce all documents related to, 

regarding, referring to and/or describing any and all audio taped conversations between Officers 

Dillard and Bittner from [June 1, 2007 through October 31, 2007], regarding Section 8 Housing 

tenants who rent from any of the Plaintiffs. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants produce an affidavit or declaration from a 

responsible official(s) within the agency with personal knowledge, under oath or penalty of 

perjury, which affirms that the agency conducted a diligent search for the evidence subject to this 

request and that such evidence has been produced, and explains the steps that were taken in 

conducting the search. 

 Request for Production Number 4:

 Any and all audio taped conversations between Defendant Officer Dillard and Defendant 

Officer Bittner regarding any of the Plaintiffs in this case. 

 GRANTED. Defendants asserted that all such audiotapes have been produced. 

Case 3:09-cv-01891-MMC Document 36 Filed 08/06/10 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 - 

Patras et. al., v. City of Antioch, et. al., United States District Court CAND Case No.: CV-09-1891 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Kumin Sommers, LLP 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants produce an affidavit or declaration from a responsible 

official(s) within the agency with personal knowledge, under oath or penalty of perjury, which 

affirms that the agency conducted a diligent search for the evidence subject to this request and 

that such evidence has been produced, and explains the steps that were taken in conducting the 

search. 

 Request for Production Number 5:

 All DOCUMENTS relating to, regarding, referring to and/or describing any and all taped 

conversations between Defendant Officer Dillard and Defendant Officer Bittner regarding any of 

the Plaintiffs in this case. 

GRANTED. Defendants asserted that all such audiotapes have been produced. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants produce an affidavit or declaration from a responsible 

official(s) within the agency with personal knowledge, under oath or penalty of perjury, which 

affirms that the agency conducted a diligent search for the evidence subject to this request and 

that such evidence has been produced, and explains the steps that were taken in conducting the 

search. 

B. Plaintiffs’ Request for Monetary Sanctions.

 DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Date:___Aug. 6, 2010________ _______________________________ 

 Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte 

 Magistrate of the U.S. District Court 

 Northern District of California 

Case 3:09-cv-01891-MMC Document 36 Filed 08/06/10 Page 4 of 4