Quiroga v. Green

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Soc. Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Prods. Liab. Litig.

    22-md-03047-YGR (PHK) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    They have constructive control over the requested documents, and the documents must be produced. Pulliam v. Lozano, No. 1:07-CV-964-LJO-MJS, 2011 WL 335866, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2011); see also Quiroga v. Green, No. 1:11CV00989 AWI DLB, 2013 WL 6086668, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2013) (affirming Magistrate Judge order finding defendant has control over third-party agency documents: “it is this Court's experience that either individual defendants who are employed by CDCR, and/or the Attorney General who represents them, can generally obtain documents from CDCR by requesting them.

  2. Emery v. Harris

    1:10-cv-01947-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014)

    Id. at 8-9. In Quiroga v. Green, 2013 WL 6086668 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2013), the Court considered a motion to reconsider which required the defendant, an employee of the CDCR, to provide initial disclosures "similar to those required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)." In determining that the motion should be denied, the Court determined that the defendant was required only to produce documents he could "obtain within the course of his employment" with the CDCR.