Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Sept 8, 2011 Order on Confidentiality

Sept 8, 2011 Order on Confidentiality

Ratings: (0)|Views: 102 |Likes:
Published by ali_winston

More info:

Published by: ali_winston on Sep 13, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,Plaintiffs,v.CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,Defendants.MASTER CASE FILENO. C00-4599 TEHSECOND ORDER RE:SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 STATUSCONFERENCEAfter carefully considering the parties’ responses to the Court’s August 25, 2011 orderthat was filed under seal, the Court now files the attached redacted version of that order inthe public record. The Court finds that Officer Jimenez’s name is a matter of public record,as his case was reported in the local press. His name will therefore not be redacted.However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court grants Defendants’ request to redact thedeterminations of the Internal Affairs Division and Executive Force Review Board. Theparties shall immediately meet and confer and notify the Court if they learn that suchfindings are part of the public record.The Court agrees with the parties that portions of the discussion at the September 22,2011 status conference should be sealed from the public. The parties’ response referencesdiscussions “in chambers,” but the Court now clarifies that the status conference will takeplace in its entirety in Courtroom No. 2. The parties shall plan to address all public mattersfirst. At the conclusion of those matters, the Court will then seal the courtroom, and thestatus conference will proceed with discussion of confidential matters. It is the Court’sintention to include in the confidential discussions all counsel, the Chief of Police, AssistantChief of Police, and City Administrator, as well as the Mayor, should she choose to attendthe status conference. The parties and Intervenor Oakland Police Officers’ Association(“OPOA”) shall meet and confer and attempt to agree on whether any other individuals
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document630 Filed09/08/11 Page1 of 2
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282should be allowed to participate in the confidential discussions. They shall include in their joint status conference statement a list of individuals who will be part of the confidentialdiscussions and, if necessary, any individuals whose participation is disputed. The partiesand OPOA shall also meet and confer and set forth their views on which matters they believemay be discussed in the public portion of the status conference and which should be keptconfidential.Those portions of the joint status statement that will discuss confidential mattersshould be filed under seal, but the Court cannot determine in a vacuum what specificinformation should be sealed. Accordingly, the parties shall comply with Civil Local Rule79-5 and General Order No. 62 when filing their joint statement, except that a redactedversion of the statement shall be timely filed in the public record on or before theSeptember 15 deadline.
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document630 Filed09/08/11 Page2 of 2
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
The Court makes no legal determination on this issue. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,Plaintiffs,v.CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,Defendants.MASTER CASE FILENO. C00-4599 TEH[REDACTED] ORDER RE:SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 STATUSCONFERENCEThe next status conference in this case is scheduled to occur on September 22, 2011,with the parties’ joint statement due on September 15, 2011. To ensure that the statusconference is productive, the Court now orders the parties to address the following issues intheir joint statement, and to come prepared to discuss these issues with the Court:1. Reinstatement of Officer Hector Jimenez. The City appears to have been largelysilent about the reinstatement of Officer Jimenez,
whom the Internal Affairs Division andExecutive Force Review Board determined shot and killed a man who posed no imminentthreat to him or his partner. While Defendants may be unable to overturn the arbitrator’sdecision that the shooting was justified and that the Department did not have just cause toterminate Jimenez’s employment,
Defendants shall address whether they have plans toreturn Officer Jimenez to patrol duty or some other assignment. If Defendants question theexpertise of the arbitrator who decided this case, they shall also explain why this particulararbitrator was selected and what steps they are taking to ensure that future arbitrations aresubmitted to individuals whom they believe to be qualified to decide force-related issues.2. “Operation Summer Tune-Up.” Efforts to promote public safety are laudable, butDefendants must explain the use of the word “tune-up,” particularly when used in the context
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document630-1 Filed09/08/11 Page1 of 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->