From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Galzinski v. City of Sacramento

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 26, 2011
No. CIV S-10-2860 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-2860 KJM CKD P.

August 26, 2011


ORDER


Plaintiff has filed a motion in which he requests that the court order unspecified persons at the Sacramento County Jail to preserve evidence collected on December 17, 2003 relating to plaintiff's being arrested that day. The biggest problem with plaintiff's motion is that it is not clear the evidence still exists. Therefore, plaintiff's motion will be denied. However, plaintiff may re-file his motion if he learns through discovery, or some other means, that relevant evidence is not being preserved despite the duty of parties in federal court to do so.See Young v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-03579-JF/PVT, 2010 WL 3564847, *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2010).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's July 13, 2011 "motion for protective order" is denied without prejudice.

Dated: August 25, 2011


Summaries of

Galzinski v. City of Sacramento

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 26, 2011
No. CIV S-10-2860 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2011)
Case details for

Galzinski v. City of Sacramento

Case Details

Full title:HARALD MARK GALZINSKI, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Aug 26, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-2860 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2011)