Legal Opinion
Soto v. City of Concord
District Court, N.D. California
Decided July 17, 1995No. C 94-02907 CW (MEJ)PublishedCited by 909 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
JAMES, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs motion to compel production of documents and motion for sanctions. After careful consideration of the papers, arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, Plaintiffs motion to compel is GRANTED, subject to an in camera review of certain requested documents. Plaintiffs motion for sanctions is DENIED, for the reasons set forth below.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Whalen v. RoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. ZolinSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Harold D. Blankenship, an Individual v. The Hearst Corporation, a Corporation, William H. Myers, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by909 opinions
- Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. Money Market 1 Institutional Investment DealerDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2012
- Rogers v. GiurbinoDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2012
- Lofton v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2015
- National Congress for Puerto Rican Rights v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Bryant v. ArmstrongDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2012
904 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.