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

Order Re Discovery Sanctions

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL

County of San Joaquin

DANIEL C. CEDERBORG, CSB #124260

Deputy County Counsel

JASON R. MORRISH, CSB#192686

Deputy County Counsel

Courthouse - Room 711

222 East Weber Avenue

Stockton, California 95202

Telephone: (209) 468-2980

Attorneys for Defendants, 

 COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, SHERIFF BAXTER

 DUNN and SHERIFF’s DEPARTMENT

 OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT T. BROWN, individually and on

behalf of Class of Persons similarly situated,

 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, SHERIFF

BAXTER DUNN, DEPUTY RICHARD

DUNSING, DEPUTY SEMILLO, DEPUTY

MENDEZ, LT. MENDOZA and DOES I

through X inclusive,

 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV.S-04-2008 FCD PAN

 

 [PROPOSED]

ORDER GRANTING COUNTY’S

MOTION IN PART AND IMPOSING

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

Date: January 25, 2006

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 25

Hon. Peter A. Nowinski

 

 

The County of San Joaquin’s Motion for An Order Compelling Discovery and/or

Imposing Discovery Sanctions having come on for hearing before the Court on January 25, 2006,

the Plaintiff being represented by counsel Bruce W. Nickerson, and the County of San Joaquin

being represented by counsel Daniel C. Cederborg, the Court having heard and considered the

papers filed herein and the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing,

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-02008-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Order Re Discovery Sanctions

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the County of San Joaquin’s Motion for An Order

Compelling Discovery and/or Imposing Discovery Sanctions is granted in part as follows:

1) The testimony of Plaintiff’s proposed expert witness, Jeffrey LeTourneau is

excluded from evidence in this action due to the failure of Plaintiff to provide a

written expert report at the time of designation of the expert pursuant to the

requirements of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order; and

2) All photographs proffered by the Plaintiff which were taken prior to the date of

this order are excluded from evidence in this action with the exception of the

photograph taken by Plaintiff’s wife of the door of the restroom, which

photograph has been produced to the Defendants herein. Plaintiff is also barred

from introducing into evidence photographs that attempt or purport to portray the

position of the Plaintiff or the arresting officers on the date of the arrest at issue in

this action. The parties are free to stipulate to the use of other photographic or

video demonstrative exhibits or evidence displaying the general area of the arrest

of the Plaintiff at issue in this action including but not limited to the restroom

facilities at the McHenry Avenue Recreation Area.

Dated: _February 6_, 2006 . By: /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

Hon. Peter A. Nowinski

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02008-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2