Cooley v. City of Vallejo

Full title: FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 20, 2015

2:14-cv-0240 DAD PS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015)

Opinion

FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., Defendants. No. 2:14-cv-0240 DAD PS United States District Court, E.D. California. February 20, 2015

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         This matter came before the court on February 20, 2015, for the hearing of defendants' motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 45.) Attorney Furah Faruqui appeared on behalf of the defendants and plaintiff Frederick Marceles Cooley appeared on his own behalf.

         Upon consideration of the arguments on file and at those made the hearing, and for the reasons set forth on the record at that hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Defendants January 5, 2015 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 45) is denied in part and granted in part as stated on the record at the February 20, 2015 hearing;

         2. On or before April 17, 2015, defendants shall produce to plaintiff all responsive documents for the prior seven years, as ordered in the court's November 14, 2014 order, and an additional three years of limited responsive documents consisting of any complaints of excessive force and the official resolution of those complaints¹;

1 The court's November 14, 2014 order also ordered defendants to file a proposed stipulated protective order and serve a copy of that proposed stipulated protective order on the plaintiff. Defendants have not yet complied with that order. Accordingly, defendants shall file a proposed stipulated protective order and serve a copy of that document on the plaintiff forthwith. If plaintiff objects to any portion of the proposed stipulated protective order, plaintiff shall file those objections within fourteen days of being served with the copy of the proposed stipulated protective order.

         3. This order is without prejudice to plaintiff moving to compel additional documents related to three year period of limited document production after plaintiff receives defendants' production; and

         4. Within seven days of the date of this order each party shall file a proposed amended schedule for the remainder of this action.