Lennox v. City of Sacramento

Full title: MARY ELLEN LENNOX, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ET. AL Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Apr 25, 2023

2:21-cv-2075-DAD-KJN (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2023)

Opinion

2:21-cv-2075-DAD-KJN

04-25-2023

MARY ELLEN LENNOX, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ET. AL Defendants.

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Mary Ellen Lennox, defendant State of California, and defendant City of Sacramento appeared, through counsel, for an informal telephonic conference regarding discovery on April 21, 2023, before the undersigned. Attorney Renee V. Masongsong appeared for plaintiff, attorney Diana Esquivel appeared for defendant State of California, and attorney Sean D. Richmond appeared for defendant City of Sacramento.¹

1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1).

Before the informal telephonic conference, plaintiff and defendant State of California submitted a joint letter summarizing the issues. (ECF No. 38.) As identified in the letter and during the conference, the following Requests for Production (RFPs) are at issue:

• Defendant State of California's RFP No. 31, which seeks records from the rehabilitation center that decedent (Jordan Zenka) attended in Oregon, which plaintiff identified at her February 9^th deposition;

• Defendant State of California's RFP No. 33, which seeks decedent's cell phone records from 12:00 a.m. on December 11, 2020, to 8:00 a.m. on December 13, 2020;and

• Defendant State of California's RFP Nos. 34 and 35, which seek all communications between plaintiff and George Cardenas (decedent's romantic partner) and any friend or roommate of decedent from December 12, 2020, to the present.

(ECF No. 38.)

The court issues this discovery order upon consideration of the parties' arguments in the joint statement and during the informal telephonic conference.

ORDER

It is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant State of California's request for plaintiff's responses to RFP No. 31 is granted. Plaintiff shall produce decedent's rehabilitation records from decedent's stay at the rehabilitation facility in Oregon identified by plaintiff at her February 9thdeposition. Plaintiff shall produce responses to RFP No. 31 within fourteen days of receipt of decedent's rehabilitation records; 2. Defendant State of California's request for plaintiff's responses to RFP No. 33 is granted. Plaintiff shall produce decedent's phone records from the following period: 12:00 a.m. on December 11, 2020, to 8:00 a.m. on December 13, 2020. The phone records produced shall include incoming and outgoing call and text information, as well as the substance of text messages sent and received during this period.Plaintiff shall produce responses to RFP No. 33 within fourteen days of receipt of decedent's phone records; and 3 3. Defendant State of California's request for plaintiff's responses to RFP Nos. 34-35 is denied without prejudice. Within seven days of this order, plaintiff shall contact Mr. Cardenas by text to identify Mr. Cardenas' current location and shall inform defendants of Mr. Cardenas' location. If plaintiff is unable to reach Mr. Cardenas, plaintiff shall inform defendants of her last communication with Mr. Cardenas, including telephone number and last known address.