Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de101> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de101 RegisterActionDate "2010-01-11" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de101 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole:Status hearing held. Motion to Vacate Discovery Restrictions and Fourth Motion to Compel 89 is granted in part and is moot in part. The City has represented that the investigative log sheets have been turned over to the plaintiff. As to the remaining documents sought, the plaintiff has accepted the City's representations regarding the documents. Based on the colloquy with counsel, it appears that plaintiff has had the identities of the individuals disclosed in the unredacted CR since the time at the beginning of the case when the City made its Rule 26 disclosures. Despite having that information for an extended period, the plaintiff did not seek to take depositions of those individuals. Counsel for the plaintiff was unable to tell me the total number of names disclosed in the "CR," and with commendable candor, he conceded that he has had the names since 12/14/09, when the CR was initially disclosed, but that permission was not sought to allow any of the individuals to be contacted until the filing of the instant motion. He could not say whether any but two individuals named in the CR had information worth pursuing. As to these two, the motion is granted and the plaintiff may contact Mr. Bobby Thompson and Mr. Gregory Spencer. Whether these individuals may be deposed is a matter for Judge Kendall since discovery has closed. The final matter discussed at the hearing involved the discoverability of the Fitness for Duty Evaluation of Officer FFD59A9 conducted following the shooting that led to the instant case. Further review of the Evaluation persuades me that the Evaluation must be produced by the City. The City has not satisfied the basic requirements essential to the establishment of the Investigatory Privilege and Officer FFD59A9 was told that the interview was not confidential and acknowledged that fact in writing. Moreover, the Evaluation did not involve confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and the patient in the course of diagnosis or treatment. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 15 (1996). The information in the Evaluation is relevant since it contains the officer's explanation of and discussion about the very incident that is the focal point of the case. It is also relevant since it involves an assessment of a particular facet of his personality or psychology. While that information may well be excluded at trial under Rule 403, Federal Rules of Evidence a matter for Judge Kendall's informed discretion it is relevant within the expansive meaning of the term under Rule 26. However, the Evaluation should be disclosed under an "Attorneys Eyes Only" protective order until further order of court. Mr. A9C9E61 may review the document in his counsel's office, but shall not disclose any aspect of the Evaluation or any portion of its contents to any other person, nor may he discuss it with any person other than his counsel of record in this case. Mr. A9C9E61 may not take notes of the Evaluation nor may he have a copy. Discovery is closed. Parties report that there will be no expert discovery. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned judge. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 01/15/2010)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de101 AdministrativeID "104" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de101 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de101 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-04824_de87 @default.