PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure
|
|
- Avice Whitehead
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure Presented by Tony M. Sain, Esq. MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
2 Five Questions
3 Five Questions: 1. What is a peace officer personnel file record? 2. What is my Police Department supposed to do when someone seeks peace officer personnel file records in a civil (or criminal) case? 3. What are the normal exemptions from the Pitchess procedure (bypasses)? 4. What happens when the officer is adverse to the Police Department in a civil lawsuit? 5. What protection does the officer or agency have in a federal court lawsuit?
4 The Pitchess Privileges: Set of state laws that control how Peace Officer Personnel File records can be Discovered or Disclosed. Cal. Evid. Code Penal Code Pitchess v. Superior Ct. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531
5 The Pitchess Privileges: Peace Officer Records Presumed to be Confidential Unless the Pitchess procedures are followed: Peace Officer Records May Not Be Discovered or Disclosed. Unless an Exception Applies.
6 Pitchess Privileges Primer: 1. What is a Personnel File Record?
7
8 What is a Personnel File?
9 What is a Personnel File?
10 What is a Personnel File?
11 What is a Personnel File?
12 #1 Mistake Public Entities and Officers Make = Assuming That If You Put It in a Folder Marked Personnel File Then the Pitchess Privilege Applies
13 1. Personnel File Defined WHAT it is NOT WHERE it is kept
14 1. Peace Officer Personnel File Records-Info personal data including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses or similar information medical history election of employee benefits employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline
15 1. Peace Officer Personnel File Records-Info appraisal or discipline complaints, or investigations of complaints concerning an event or transaction in which he or she participated, or perceived... that pertains to the manner in which the officer performed his/her duties And any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy for the officer
16 Practice Tip: Personnel File Record Q: If the officer s Pitchess-protected information is obtainable from another source, is a state court litigant still required to go through the Pitchess procedure before conducting discovery or making disclosure of such information?
17 Practice Tip: Personnel File Record Yes. The Pitchess privileges apply to personnel file information even if the information at issue is contained or otherwise obtainable from sources outside of the peace officer s physical or digital personnel file.
18 Practice Tip: Personnel File Record Q: A state court civil litigant seeks to depose the officer about the officer s disciplinary history. Must the litigant get a Pitchess order before the officer is required to answer those deposition questions?
19 Practice Tip: Personnel File Record Yes. The Pitchess statutes protect personnel records and information from such records because there would be no purpose to protecting such information in the personnel records if it could be obtained by the simple expedient of asking the officers for their disciplinary history orally.
20 Practice Tip: Personnel File Record Do the Pitchess statutes control how long a public entity must retain an officer s personnel file records? No Yes The Pitchess statutes do not contain specific requirements about a minimum or maximum length of time for record retention, but... Because records related to complaints are not discoverable if they relate to events more than 5 years before the date of the incident at issue in the state court case... Public entities should consider limiting their peace officer personnel records retention to ~5 years worth. See Cal. Evid. Code 1045(b)(1); Cal. Penal Code 832.5(b).
21 2. What is my Police Dept. Supposed to Do When a Litigant Seeks Peace Officer Personnel File Records-Information?
22 2. What to Do With Pitchess Discovery? Pitchess Privilege Issues Tend to Arise: When a State Court Civil or Criminal Litigant Tries to Discredit a Peace Officer When a Peace Officer is Adverse to his own or former Public Entity/Police Department When a Non-Party Seeks Protected Officer Info
23 2. What to Do With Pitchess Discovery? Regardless of Whether the State Court Lawsuit is Criminal or Civil... The Pitchess Procedure is the EXCLUSIVE means for discovery-disclosure of peace officer personnel file records or information. Unless an EXCEPTION Applies... (more on that later).
24 2. Overview of the Pitchess Procedure Public Entity/Police Dept. Should Verify: Notice-Standing and Service Rules were Followed Threshold for In Camera Review was Met Specificity Good Cause Materiality (Manifest Necessity) Reasonable Belief re Possession-Existence Court Properly Conducts an In Camera Review Court Properly Limits and Protects Discovery and/or Disclosure
25 2. Pitchess Motion Procedure: Notice-Standing and Service Issues
26 2. Pitchess Procedure: Notice & Service Litigant Must File a Pitchess Motion in Court Serve Notice of Pitchess Motion on the Agency With Custody of the Personnel File Litigant Should Also Serve Notice of the Pitchess Motion on the Officer Whose Records Are Sought When the Officer is a Party to the Action
27 2. Pitchess Procedure: Notice & Service The Custodial Agency Must Notify the Officer Whose Records Are Being Sought by the Motion Both the Officer and the Custodial Agency Have Standing to Oppose the Pitchess Motion
28 2. Pitchess Procedure: Notice & Service But, Only the Custodial Agency Has the Right to Waive a Hearing on the Pitchess Motion and Proceed Directly to the In Camera Review Phase
29 2. Pitchess Motion Procedure: Threshold Requirements
30 2. Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Officer Personnel File Records and Information are Presumed to be Confidential. To Overcome that Presumption (and get to the In Camera review phase), the State Court Litigant Must Meet the Pitchess Procedure s Threshold requirements.
31 2. Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Threshold Elements to Overcome Pitchess Confidentiality Presumption: Specificity Good Cause Materiality & Manifest Necessity Reasonable Belief re Possession- Existence
32 2. Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Specificity Requirement Describe the Type of Records sought Identify the Officer whose records-information is/are sought Identify the Governmental Agency which has custody-control Rationale: To prevent fishing expeditions for info that is irrelevant to the pending issues of the case.
33 2. Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Good Cause Requirement Pitchess Motion Must Include: Sworn Declaration Plausible Factual Scenario of Officer Misconduct Theory of Admissibility
34 2. Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Materiality & Manifest Necessity Requirement Pitchess Motion Must: Materiality Show a Logical Link Between the Information Sought and the Claims At Issue Manifest Necessity Show that Without a Pitchess Order, the Information Sought Is Essential and Cannot Be Discovered or Disclosed from Non-Privileged Sources
35 Pitchess Procedure: Threshold Possession Requirement Pitchess Motion Must State: Reasonable Belief that the Government Agency Specifically Identified Has Custody At the In Camera Review Hearing, IF the Agency Does NOT Actually Have the Records-Information Sought, It Must Demonstrate Such Absence to the Court
36 2. Pitchess Motion Procedure: The In Camera Review
37 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Once the Moving Party Meets the Pitchess Threshold, the Court MUST Review the Personnel File Records of the Officer Identified In Camera In Camera = In Chambers, NOT in Open Court
38 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Pitchess Motion = Two-Step Process: 1. Hearing on the Pitchess Motion For Court to Determine If the Threshold is Met IF the Threshold is Met The In Camera Review Session For Court to Identify Records that are Specified in the Successful Pitchess Motion and Discoverable Under the Pitchess Statutes
39 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Practice Tip: Some Courts Expect to Hold the In Camera Review on the Same Date as the Motion Hearing, But This is Not Required. The Agency Custodian of Records Should Not Attend the Motion Hearing Unless the Court Orders It, BUT... The Agency Custodian MUST Attend the In Camera Review Session
40 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review The Agency s Custodian of Records Should Bring All Records Potentially Within the Scope of the Pitchess Motion to the Court for Review.
41 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Practice Tips: Bring Hardcopies, NOT Digital Records Put the Apparent Target Records in a Binder for the Court to Peruse... BUT Have the Entire Personnel File Available in Case the Court Demands It
42 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Make Sure the Court Conducts the Record Review In Chambers, NOT in Open Court
43 Practice Tip: In Camera Review Practice Tip: Some Courts Resist Doing the Review In Camera... BUT, It is Required by Law.
44 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Make Sure that Only Authorized Personnel are Present In Camera During the Record Review: Judge Court Reporter (Court Staff Also Permitted) Agency s Custodian of Records Officer(s) Whose Records Are Being Reviewed Persons Whom the Privilege Holder(s) Want to Have Present
45 Practice Tip: In Camera Review Practice Tip: The Privilege Holder Should Specifically State (Not Request) That He/She/It Wants to Have Its Attorney Present for the In Camera Review: The Attorney Should be Able to Protect the Privileges During the In Camera Review Better than the Custodian Alone.
46 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review People Who Are NOT Permitted to be Present or Within Earshot During the In Camera Review: Moving Party Moving Party s Attorney/Representative Others Who Are Not on the Authorized List
47 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review On the Record Court Reporter Custodian of Records Must Be Under Oath Court Must Verbally Identify Documents Conducted Outside Hearing of Movant etc. Transcript Must Be Sealed
48 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review Mandatory Exclusions The Court Must Exclude from a Pitchess Discovery-Disclosure Order: Info re Complaints re Conduct 5+ Years Before Incident at Issue in the Action Conclusions, Thought Processes, Analyses, and Factual Inferences of any Investigator of a Complaint of Officer Misconduct Facts So Remote as to be Virtually Useless (of No Practical Benefit)
49 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review The Pitchess Order Production Component: Make Sure the Order is Specific About Which Records or Information Must be Discovered to (or May be Disclosed by) the Moving Party, IF Any Are Identified During the In Camera Review
50 Practice Tip: In Camera Review Practice Tip: Some Courts Will Order the Custodian to Produce the Specified Records; Other Courts Will Copy the Identified Records and Produce them After the In Camera Review is Completed.
51 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review The Pitchess Order the Protective Order Component: Mandatory Pitchess Order Should Include the Mandatory Requirement that records disclosed or discovered may not be used for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law. Recommended A Privilege Holder Should Also Make a Good Cause Showing that the Records: May Only Be Used by the Movant in the Action at Issue; and Must Be Returned or Verifiably Destroyed at the Action s End
52 2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review The Pitchess Order Disclosure v. Discovery: The Pitchess statutes, and some of the related case law, suggest that discovery and disclosure are two different things in the Pitchess procedure: Discovery may mean pre-trial productiondisclosure to movant Disclosure may mean publication to the jury at trial
53 Practice Tip: In Camera Review Practice Tip Make Sure the Pitchess Order Clarifies Whether the Records at Issue Must Only Be Produced to the Moving Party, or Whether the Moving Party is Permitted to Publish Them at Trial Without Further Order (Or Both)
54 3. What Are the Normal Exemptions from the Pitchess Procedure? (Bypasses)
55 3. Pitchess Procedure: Normal Exemptions 1. The Criminal Prosecutor s Investigation 2. Release of Complaint to Complainant 3. Discretionary Release of Anonymous Data 4. Rebuttal Facts After False Statement to Media
56 3. Criminal Prosecutor s Investigation Exception Pitchess statutory procedure does not apply to investigations or proceedings conducted by: Grand Jury District Attorney s Office Attorney General s Office
57 3. Release of Complaint to Complainant Government Agency is Required to Release a Complaint to the Person Who Made the Complaint No Pitchess Motion/Order Required
58 3. Anonymous Data Exception A Government Agency is Permitted, but Not Required to Disclose Data Regarding: Number, Type, or Disposition of Complaints Made Against Its Officers IF the Data Does Not Identify the Individuals- Officers No Pitchess Motion/Order Required
59 3. False Facts About Discipline Made by an Officer to the Media Where an Officer (or His Representative) Publicly Makes a False Statement About an Investigation or the Imposition of Discipline Against that Officer A Government Agency is Permitted, but Not Required to Disclose Facts in the Officer s Personnel File to Specifically Refute the False Statement(s) Made
60 4. What Happens Under Pitchess When the Officer is Adverse to the Police Dept.?
61 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. The Officer May Be in an Adversarial Position to the Custodial Police Agency When: The Officer Seeks to Review Internal Affairs File Records Not Stored in His/Her Personnel File The Officer is a Party to a Lawsuit Against the Custodial Police Agency (& Public Entity) The Officer Seeks to Testify as an Adverse Witness Against the Custodial Police Agency
62 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Officer Review of Internal Affairs File Records NOT Stored in His/Her Personnel File: While the Officer is Employed by the Custodial Government Agency, the Officer Is Entitled to Reasonable Inspection of His/Her Own Personnel File Without a Pitchess Motion/Order Officer Only Entitled to Inspect His/Her Personnel File Records Containing or Constituting Adverse Comments But NOT the Underlying Investigative Records (Particularly Where Such Records Are Stored Separately from the Officer s Personnel File) Where the Officer is Not Entitled to His/Her Own Personnel File Records, the Officer May Need to File/Serve a Pitchess Motion
63 4. Officer v. Police Dept.: The Emerging Exception frompitchess for the Custodial Government Agency
64 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. The Custodial Agency Discovery Exception: Question: What Happens When the Agency With Custody of the Officer s Personnel File Wants to Review or Use that Information Against the Officer in Litigation? Example: When the Custodial Public Entity is Up Against the Officer as an Adverse Party or Adverse Witness.
65 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. The Custodial Agency Discovery Exception: Michael v. Gates (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 737
66 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Facts Former/retired LAPD captain testified as an Expert for Plaintiffs in a Civil Suit No Deposition of Expert No Pitchess Motion Filed/Heard City Reviewed Personnel File Prior to Trial City Tried to Use Pers. Info at Trial, But Could Not Michael then Sued City for Pitchess Violation The Trial Court Decided for the City: No Violation Michael Appealed The City Prevailed on Appeal
67 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Issues Presented: Must a Custodial Government Agency Go Through the Pitchess Procedure Before It (or Its Attorneys) Can Review Officer Personnel Files In Its Possession? Must a Custodial Government Agency Go Through the Pitchess Procedure Before It (or Its Attorneys) Can Use Officer Personnel File Information Against the Officer in Litigation?
68 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Issues Presented (Reformed by Court): Must the Custodial Agency Go Through the Pitchess Procedure to Conduct Discovery Regarding Officer Personnel File Information In Its Possession? Must the Custodial Agency Go Through the Pitchess Procedure Before Making Otherwise Un- Excepted Disclosure of Officer Personnel File Information In Its Possession?
69 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Rationale: Under Pitchess, Discovery = Inspection of Records and Other Materials in the Possession of an Adverse Party in Litigation Purpose of the Pitchess Statutes Is to Regulate Use of Peace Officer Personnel Records in Civil and Criminal Proceedings
70 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Rationale: Where the Custodial Agency Already Possesses the Information at Issue, It Is NOT Conducting Discovery Under Pitchess Where the Custodial Agency is Not Conducting Discovery of Pitchess-Privileged Matter, the Custodial Agency Is NOT Required to Go Through the Pitchess Procedure
71 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Implications: Where a Custodial Agency Deposes an Officer About Information Already In the Agency s Possession, the Agency Is NOT Conducting Discovery Under the Meaning of the Pitchess Statutes
72 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Implications (cont d): The Rationale Behind Barring Deposition on Pitchess-Privileged Information Thus Operates In Reverse On Matters That Are Not Protected by the Pitchess Privilege Just as the Officer Should Not Be Forced to Reveal Information Protected by the Pitchess Privilege Just Because the Quest for Such Information Comes Via a Deposition...
73 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Implications (cont d): Because the Pitchess Statutes Are Not to be Construed to Require Absurd Results, the Custodial Agency Should Not Be Forced to Get a Pitchess Order to Depose an Officer About Information It Already Possesses As Long As the Deposition Does Not Seek Information the Agency Does Not Possess, the Deposition Would Not Be Discovery Under the Pitchess Statutes
74 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Implications Open Question: Whether or not a Pitchess Order is Required Where the Custodial Agency Seeks to Depose the Officer About Personnel File Facts- Information the Agency Does Not Possess, but Which Are Related to or Underlying the Facts-Information the Agency Already Possesses
75 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Implications: The Michael Court Also Implied That Its Decision Might be Different If the Trial Court Had Allowed the Pitchess-Privileged Matter to Be Used at Trial The Michael Court Thus Implied That a Pitchess Order Might Have Been Necessary If the Custodial Agency Sought to Disclose the Pitchess-Privileged Matter to the Jury at Trial
76 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Aftermath: Other Courts Evaluating the Issue or Applying the Michael Holding Have Noted that Although the Pitchess Statutes Permit the Custodial Agency to Waive the Need for a Hearing on a Pitchess Motion and to Review Personnel File Information In Its Possession Without a Pitchess Order...
77 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Aftermath: Because the Pitchess Statutes Do Not Permit the Agency to Waive the Requirement for a Motion or In Camera Review Altogether... Govt. Alone May Waive Right to Hearing on Pitchess Motion A Pitchess Order is Likely Required Before Disclosure of Personnel File to the Jury (or Entities Other Than the Custodial Agency and Its Attorneys)
78 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Aftermath Key Cases to Review: Zanone v. City of Whittier (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 174, 187 Gonzalez v. Spencer (9th Cir. 2003) 336 F.3d 832, People v. Gwillim (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1254, People v. Superior Ct. (Gremminger) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 397, Attorney General Opinion, 79 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 185, (1996)
79 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Take-Away #1: Custodial Public Entities (and/or their Attorneys) Do Not Need a Pitchess Order to Review an Officer s Personnel File Information In Its Possession Even If the Purpose of the Review is Adverse to Officer s Interests (i.e., to Impeach the Officer at Trial)
80 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Take-Away #2: Custodial Public Entities (and/or their Attorneys) Should Not Need a Pitchess Order to Question (or Depose) an Officer About the Officer s Personnel File Information IF that Information is Already In Its Possession It s Not Discovery Privileged by Pitchess If the Entity Already Possesses the Information at Issue The Pitchess Statutes Do Not Bar Officer Questioning Where the Pitchess Privilege Does Not Apply
81 4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept. Key Take-Away #3: Custodial Public Entities (and/or their Attorneys) Probably Do Need a Pitchess Order to Examine an Officer/Witness at Trial About the Officer s Personnel File Information In Its Possession If an Officer s Personnel File Information is to be Disclosed to the Jury at Trial (or to other unauthorized persons), Through Testimony or Exhibits, the Public Entity Likely Must Go Through the Pitchess Process Before Such Disclosure Even for Personnel File Information Already In Its Possession
82 Liability for Custodial Agency Breach of the Pitchess Procedure: FAQ If the Public Entity Violates the Pitchess Statutes, Does the Affected Officer Have a Right to Sue on That Basis? If the Custodial Agency Discloses or Conducts Discovery of Pitchess-Privileged Information Without a Pitchess Order, Can the Officer Bring a Potentially Valid Claim?
83 Liability for Custodial Agency Breach of the Pitchess Procedure: If the Public Entity Violates the Pitchess Statutes, Does the Affected Officer Have a Right to Sue on That Basis? No. There is no private right of action (no cause of action) for violation of the Pitchess privileges by the custodial government agency. Other Available Relief? Yes. A cause of action for the tort of invasion of privacy could be based on a disclosure of Pitchess-privileged matter, in violation of the Pitchess statutes, where the officer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the matter at issue. Writ of Mandate to Prevent the Agency from Releasing Information in Violation of the Pitchess Statutes in the First Place.
84 Practice Tip: Officer v. Police Dept. Custodial Government Agencies Should: Consider Formatting any Motion to Compel as a Pitchess Motion If an Adverse Officer Refuses to Answer Questions Related to Custodial Personnel File Information at a Deposition Or Consider Making a Pitchess Motion Before Deposing the Adverse Officer
85 Practice Tip: Officer v. Police Dept. Custodial Government Agencies Should: Plan on Bringing a Pitchess Motion Before Examining an Adverse Officer- Witness At Trial About Personnel File Information in the Agency s Possession
86 Practice Tip: Officer v. Police Dept. Custodial Government Agencies Should: Provide Training to Records Custodians, Police Supervisors, and Attorneys Representing the Custodial Public Agency About the Requirements of the Pitchess Procedure To Reduce the Risk of Successful Invasion of Privacy Claims
87 5. What Protections Do the Officer or Agency Have in Federal Court?
88 5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Question #1: My Case is in Federal Court, Do I Need to Follow the Pitchess Procedure? Short Answer = NO No Pitchess Motion or Order Required for Discovery of Peace Officer Records By Any Party in a Federal Case No Pitchess Motion or Order Required for Disclosure of Peace Officer Records by Any Party in a Federal Case Why Not? Because Federal Privileges, NOT State-Law Privileges, Control in Federal Cases. See Fed. R. Evid. 501.
89 5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Question #2: Does That Mean the Officer or the Custodial Government Agency Has NO Protection for its Officer s Personnel File Records? Short Answer = NO Why? Because There Are Analogs of the Pitchess Privileges in Federal Privilege Law.
90 5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs in Federal Court: Right to Privacy Official Information Privilege Executive- Deliberative Process Privilege Law Enforcement Investigation Privilege
91 5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Right to Privacy: Where a Party has a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Information... And Party Objects to Disclosure... Federal Court will Balance Need for Disclosure v. Constitutional Interest in Privacy Officer s Pitchess Privileges MAY be Considered in the Balancing
92 5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Official Information: Protects an Agency s Official But Confidential Records Examples: Personnel File Records Internal Affairs Records
93 5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Deliberative- Executive Process: Protects an Agency s Decision-Making Processes: Analyses & Opinions Evaluations Drafts Recommendations Proposals
94 5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Official Information and Deliberative-Executive Process: Rationale of Both Privileges: To Avoid Discouraging Citizens from Providing Confidential Information to the Govt./P.D. To Avoid Discouraging Agencies from Honest and Candid Self-Evaluation, To Improve Services
95 5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Official Information and Deliberative- Executive Process Both: Involve Balancing Do Not Protect Purely Factual Information (Where Severable From Analyses) Require Showing of Specific Need for the Protected Information Should Cause Court to Do In Camera Review, But... Federal Courts Often Skip the In Camera Review re such privileges
96 5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Law Enforcement Investigation: Usually Bars Disclosure of Facts and Investigatory Files While the Investigation is Still Ongoing-Incomplete Rationale = To Protect Ability of Law Enforcement to Investigate Potential Crimes Court Balances: Need for Disclosure v. Potential Harm to the Investigation
97 5. Officer Protections in Federal Court Take-Aways re Federal Officer & Agency Record Privileges: Generally Weaker Than the Pitchess Privileges The Federal Privileges Favor Discovery-Disclosure Whereas, the Pitchess Privileges Presume Confidentiality The Federal Pitchess Analogs Rely Upon Balancing the Litigant s Interests Against the Privilege-Holder s Interests In Camera Review is Usually Optional Once Privileged Matter is Produced, There is No Automatic Procedural Obstacle to Use at Trial by the Recipient
98 Five Questions We ve Answered: 1. What is a peace officer personnel file record? 2. What is my Police Department supposed to do when someone seeks peace officer personnel file records in a California state court civil (or criminal) case? 3. What are the normal exemptions from the Pitchess procedure (bypasses)? 4. What happens when the officer is up against (adverse to) the Police Department in a civil lawsuit? (Emerging Trends) 5. What protection does the officer or agency have in a federal court lawsuit? With These Answers, You Should Be Able to Manage the Process of Pitchess Discovery With More Confidence, Less Risk, and More Effective Results.
99 Unanswered Questions? Q & A Time... Please also see our handout: Includes Extensive Analysis and Case Law Authority
100 PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure Presented by Tony M. Sain, Esq. MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
BRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF VENTURA BRADY DISCOVERY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT (INTERNAL POLICY) Revised April 22, 2010 INTRODUCTION The following is an internal policy that addresses
More informationCalifornia Public Records Act. Marco A. Gonzalez March 18, 2015
California Public Records Act Marco A. Gonzalez marco@coastlawgroup.com March 18, 2015 When information which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon
More informationAttorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters
Attorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters Code of Civil Procedure 1985.8 Subpoena seeking electronically stored information (a)(1) A subpoena in a civil proceeding may require
More informationDiscovery Requests in Trademark Cases Under U.S. Law
Discovery Requests in Trademark Cases Under U.S. Law Michael Grow Arent Fox LLP, Washington D.C., United States Summary and Outline Parties to civil actions or inter partes proceedings before the United
More informationRhode Island False Claims Act
Rhode Island False Claims Act 9-1.1-1. Name of act. [Effective until February 15, 2008.] This chapter may be cited as the State False Claims Act. 9-1.1-2. Definitions. [Effective until February 15, 2008.]
More informationPART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY
PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regulate civil discovery procedures in the state. Florida does not require supplementary responses to
More informationby Robert J. Permutt, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Lead, Nationwide Insurance Company Mirna M. Santiago, Esq.
by Robert J. Permutt, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Lead, Nationwide Insurance Company Mirna M. Santiago, Esq. Chair Torts, Insurance & Compensation Law Section, New York State Bar Association Of Counsel
More informationWHAT IS A DEPOSITION?
by Robert J. Permutt, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Lead, Nationwide Insurance Company Mirna M. Santiago, Esq. Chair Torts, Insurance & Compensation Law Section, New York State Bar Association Of Counsel
More informationFiling an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12
ADVISORY LITIGATION PRIVATE EQUITY CONVERGENT Filing an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12 Michael Stegawski michael@cla-law.com 800.750.9861 x101 This memorandum is provided for
More informationWASHINGTON STATE MEDICAID FRAUD FALSE CLAIMS ACT. This chapter may be known and cited as the medicaid fraud false claims act.
Added by Chapter 241, Laws 2012. Effective date June 7, 2012. RCW 74.66.005 Short title. WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAID FRAUD FALSE CLAIMS ACT This chapter may be known and cited as the medicaid fraud false
More informationO.C.G.A. TITLE 23 Chapter 3 Article 6. GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2015 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved.
O.C.G.A. TITLE 23 Chapter 3 Article 6 GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2015 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved. *** Current Through the 2015 Regular Session *** TITLE 23. EQUITY CHAPTER 3. EQUITABLE REMEDIES
More informationNAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1
NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1 Question: The Ethics Counselors of the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) have been asked to address the following scenario: An investigator working for Defense
More information31 U.S.C. Section 3733 Civil investigative demands
CLICK HERE to return to the home page 31 U.S.C. Section 3733 Civil investigative demands (a) In General. (1)Issuance and service. Whenever the Attorney General, or a designee (for purposes of this section),
More informationATTORNEY-CLIENT MAY 25, 2011 JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ.
THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE MAY 25, 2011 MCLE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE PURPOSE FOR THE PRIVILEGE 3 II. WHAT IS PROTECTED 3 III. WAIVER OF THE PRIVILEGE 3 IV. WHEN A CORPORATION
More informationA MODEL ACT FOR REGULATING THE USE OF WEARABLE BODY CAMERAS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
A MODEL ACT FOR REGULATING THE USE OF WEARABLE BODY CAMERAS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT Using this document 1. This Model Act recognizes that the costs associated with the use of body worn cameras will be extensive
More informationColorado Medicaid False Claims Act
Colorado Medicaid False Claims Act (C.R.S. 25.5-4-303.5 to 310) i 25.5-4-303.5. Short title This section and sections 25.5-4-304 to 25.5-4-310 shall be known and may be cited as the "Colorado Medicaid
More informationRule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure [ Proposed Amendment ]
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure [ Proposed Amendment ] (a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter. (1) Initial Disclosures. Except to the extent
More informationChicago False Claims Act
Chicago False Claims Act Chapter 1-21 False Statements 1-21-010 False Statements. Any person who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in violation of any statute, ordinance or
More informationIN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION., ) Plaintiff, ) ) CONSENT STIPULATIONS FOR v. ) ARBITRATION PROCEDURES ), ) Defendant.
NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION -CVD-, ) Plaintiff, ) ) CONSENT STIPULATIONS FOR v. ) ARBITRATION PROCEDURES ), ) Defendant. ) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard
More informationTEXAS DISCOVERY. Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY
TEXAS DISCOVERY Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW 2. 1999 REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY 3. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLANS 4. FORMS OF DISCOVERY A. Discovery Provided for by the Texas
More informationTHE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C
THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733 Reflecting proposed amendments in S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2009
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT Effective April 29, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL PROVISIONS... 1 1. Authority and Applicability.... 1 2. Definitions.... 1 A. Administrative Law
More informationInvestigations and Enforcement
Investigations and Enforcement Los Angeles Administrative Code Sections 24.21 24.29 Last Revised August 14, 2017 Prepared by City Ethics Commission CEC Los Angeles 200 North Spring Street, 24 th Floor
More informationADOPTED JUNE 19, 2013 MODEL POLICY DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE FOR RECURRING INVESTIGATIVE OR PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES
ADOPTED JUNE 19, 2013 MODEL POLICY DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE FOR RECURRING INVESTIGATIVE OR PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS 2013 1 This written
More informationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility Board Rules Adopted June 23, 1983 Effective July 1, 1983 This edition represents a complete revision of the Board Rules. All previous
More informationPublic Records Act Requests and Pending Litigation
Public Records Act Requests and Pending Litigation Presented to October 4, 2012 John T. Kennedy, Partner Public Records Act Request While Lawsuit is Pending The fact that a lawsuit is pending does not
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial
More informationResolution Through the Courts TEI Audits & Appeals Seminar
Resolution Through the Courts TEI Audits & Appeals Seminar May 3, 2018 Carley Roberts Partner Tim Gustafson Counsel 2018 (US) LLP All Rights Reserved. This communication is for general informational purposes
More informationEffective January 1, 2016
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA Effective January 1, 2016 SECTION 1: PURPOSE The primary purposes of character and fitness screening before
More informationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
1 of 7 10/10/2005 11:14 AM Federal Rules of Civil Procedure collection home tell me more donate search V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY > Rule 26. Prev Next Notes Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery;
More informationINDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT
Indiana False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act, codified at 5-11-5.5 et seq (as amended through P.L. 109-2014) Indiana Medicaid False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act, codified at 5-11-5.7
More informationResponding to Government Investigations: What to do when the Government Knocks. Gabriel Colwell Partner Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Responding to Government Investigations: What to do when the Government Knocks Gabriel Colwell Partner Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Today s Agenda Corporate Criminal Liability Enforcement Environment General
More informationInvestigations and Enforcement
Investigations and Enforcement Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 24.1.2 Last Revised January 26, 2007 Prepared by City Ethics Commission CEC Los Angeles 200 North Spring Street, 24 th Floor Los Angeles,
More informationPROCESSING FOIA REQUESTS
PROCESSING FOIA REQUESTS Step 1: Request Received If request is oral, reduce to writing. Document date of receipt. Step 2: Assess the Request Is the Requestor an Arkansas citizen? Does the request describe
More informationDistrict of Columbia False Claims Act
District of Columbia False Claims Act 2-308.03. Claims by District government against contractor (a) (1) All claims by the District government against a contractor arising under or relating to a contract
More informationAn Officer s Guide to Internal Affairs
An Officer s Guide to Internal Affairs Richmond Police Officers Association January 2014 Alison Berry Wilkinson Berry Wilkinson Law Group Purpose of Internal Affairs Ensure the integrity of the Department
More informationSP00-3 Sealed Records Procedures Appellate and Trial Court Rules Standards for sealing. Proposal applies to civil and criminal proceedings
Title Sealed Records Procedures Appellate and Trial Court Rules (adopt Cal. Rules of Court, rules.,.,.,., and.; amend rule ; repeal rules and ) Summary The proposed rules would establish standards and
More informationCivil Procedure. The Origin of a Lawsuit. The Resolution of Private Disputes Chapter 2 Part 2 Civil Procedure
The Resolution of Private Disputes Chapter 2 Part 2 Civil Procedure Civil procedure is the set of legal rules governing the conduct of a trial court case between two private parties. Civil Procedure Adversarial
More informationCONDUCTING LAWFUL AND EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT
CONDUCTING LAWFUL AND EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS REGARDING ALLEGATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT By Jennifer C. McGarey Secretary and Assistant General Counsel US Airways, Inc. and Tom A. Jerman O
More informationTRONOX TORT CLAIMS TRUST. Individual Review and Arbitration Procedures for Category A and Category D Personal Injury Claims
TRONOX TORT CLAIMS TRUST Individual Review and Arbitration Procedures for Category A and Category D Personal Injury Claims Pursuant to Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the Tronox Tort Claims Trust Distribution
More informationCHAPTER 36. MEDICAID FRAUD PREVENTION SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
TEXAS HUMAN RESOURCES CODE CHAPTER 36. MEDICAID FRAUD PREVENTION SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 36.001. Definitions In this chapter: (1) "Claim" means a written or electronically submitted request or
More informationINVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS Wes Bearden, CEO Attorney & Licensed Investigator Bearden Investigative Agency, Inc. www.beardeninvestigations.com PRIVILEGE KEY POINTS WE ALL KNOW
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Plaintiff, Civil Action File No.: v. Defendant. CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER By stipulation and agreement of the parties,
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 1/18/12 City of Fullerton v. Super. Ct. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO. 10:00 a.m. January 9, 2014 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME: JUDGE: 10:00 a.m. January 9, 2014 HON. EUGENE L. BALONON DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 14 P. MERCADO ISAAC GONZALEZ, JAMES CATHCART, and JULIAN CAMACHO,
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COWLITZ COUNTY HEARINGS EXAMINER
RULES OF PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COWLITZ COUNTY HEARINGS EXAMINER INTRODUCTION The following Rules of Procedure have been adopted by the Cowlitz County Hearing Examiner. The examiner and deputy examiners
More informationLOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B
124 NORTH CAROLINA ROBESON COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION LOCAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT 16B Rule 1. Name. These rules shall
More informationJUDICIARY OF GUAM ELECTRONIC FILING RULES 1
1 1 Adopted by the Supreme Court of Guam pursuant to Promulgation Order No. 15-001-01 (Oct. 2, 2015). TABLE OF CONTENTS DIVISION I - AUTHORITY AND SCOPE Page EFR 1.1. Electronic Document Management System.
More informationThe Federal Employee Advocate
The Federal Employee Advocate Vol. 10, No. 2 August 20, 2010 EEOC ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE S HANDBOOK This issue of the Federal Employee Advocate provides our readers the handbook used by Administrative Judges
More informationPierce County Ethics Commission Administrative Procedures (Promulgated pursuant to Pierce County Code Ch. 3.12) Revised December 13, 2017
(Promulgated pursuant to Pierce County Code Ch. 3.12) Revised December 13, 2017 I. GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES 1.1 Description of Organization The Pierce County Ethics Commission ("Commission") was established
More informationALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) PROCEDURES
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) PROCEDURES 00015541-3 Page 1 of Attachment A to Asbestos TDP KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION
More informationacquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
GlosaryofLegalTerms acquittal: Judgment that a criminal defendant has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. affidavit: A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making
More informationLitigating in California State Court, but Not a Local? (Part 2) 1
Litigating in California State Court, but Not a Local? Plan for the Procedural Distinctions (Part 2) Unique Discovery Procedures and Issues Elizabeth M. Weldon and Matthew T. Schoonover May 29, 2013 This
More informationCITY OF BELLINGHAM HEARING EXAMINER RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
CITY OF BELLINGHAM HEARING EXAMINER RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Section 1: General Provisions... 4 1.01 APPLICABILITY... 4 1.02 EFFECTIVE DATE... 4 1.03 INTERPRETATION OF RULES... 4 Section 2: Rules
More informationThird, it should provide for the orderly admission of evidence.
REPORT The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, most state rules, and many judges authorize or require the parties to prepare final pretrial submissions that will set the parameters for how the trial will
More informationUNITED STATES TAX COURT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE. May 21, 2015 Duke University Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies
UNITED STATES TAX COURT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE May 21, 2015 Duke University Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies EXPERT WITNESSES CREATIVE APPROACHES PROS AND CONS PANELISTS: JUDGE MARY ANN COHEN JUDGE KATHLEEN
More informationNote: New caption for Rule 1:38 adopted July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009.
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY PART I. RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION CHAPTER IV. ADMINISTRATION RULE 1:38. PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS Rule 1:38. Public
More informationBAR OF GUAM ETHICS COMMITTEE RULES OF PROCEDURE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
BAR OF GUAM ETHICS COMMITTEE RULES OF PROCEDURE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 1 BAR OF GUAM ETHICS COMMITTEE RULES OF PROCEDURE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Rule 1. Purpose of Rules. The purpose of these rules
More informationDraft Rules on Privacy and Access to Court Records
Draft Rules on Privacy and Access to Court Records As Approved by the Judicial Council of Virginia, March, 2008 Part Nine Rules for Public Access to Court Records Rule 9:1. Purpose; Construction. Rule
More information15A-903. Disclosure of evidence by the State Information subject to disclosure. (a) Upon motion of the defendant, the court must order:
SUBCHAPTER IX. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE. Article 48. Discovery in the Superior Court. 15A-901. Application of Article. This Article applies to cases within the original jurisdiction of the superior court. (1973,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff(s), CASE NO.: v. DIVISION:. Defendant(s). / UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CAUSE FOR TRIAL AND
More informationTexas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act
Tex. Hum. Res. Code 36.006 Page 1 36.001. [Expires September 1, 2015] Definitions Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (Tex. Hum. Res. Code 36.001 to 117) i In this chapter: (1) "Claim" means a written
More informationRecord Retention Program Overview
Business/Employee Record Retention and Production: Strategies for Effective and Efficient Record Retention Business & Commercial Litigation Seminar Peoria, Illinois January 17, 2013 Presented by: Brad
More informationTHE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE FIREMEN S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO
THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE FIREMEN S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO Procedural Rules Established Pursuant to 40 ILCS 5/6-191 Governing Applications for and Administrative Hearings upon Applications
More informationCALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT
CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 12650 of the Government Code is amended to read: 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may
More informationKing County Prosecuting Attorney's Office Brady Committee Protocol
DANIEL T. SATTERBERG PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Office of the Prosecuting Attorney CRIMINAL DIVISION W554 Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296-9000 Prosecuting Attorney's Office Brady
More informationCase 2:05-cv CNC Document 119 Filed 07/13/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No.
Case 2:05-cv-00467-CNC Document 119 Filed 07/13/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN INDIA BREWING, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 05-C-0467 MILLER BREWING CO., Defendant.
More informationRules for Qualified & Court-Appointed Parenting Coordinators
Part I. STANDARDS Rules 15.000 15.200 Part II. DISCIPLINE Rule 15.210. Procedure [No Change] Any complaint alleging violations of the Florida Rules For Qualified And Court-Appointed Parenting Coordinators,
More informationPARTIES JOINT RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER OF APRIL 28 TH, 2005
Case 1:01-cv-00400-EGS Document 38 Filed 08/01/2005 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CYNTHIA ARTIS, et al., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 01-0400 (EGS) v. ALAN
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationCase 4:16-cv RGE-SBJ Document 93 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 4:16-cv-00650-RGE-SBJ Document 93 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION DEBORAH INNIS, on behalf of the Telligen, Inc. Employee
More informationNEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT POLICY MANUAL
NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT POLICY MANUAL DECEMBER 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1 SECTION 1: STAFF 1.1 Administrator s Authority; Clerk of the Commission 2 1.2 Court of Appeals
More informationDepositions upon oral examination. A. When depositions may be taken. After commencement of the action, any party may take the testimony of any
1-030. Depositions upon oral examination. A. When depositions may be taken. After commencement of the action, any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral
More informationFINAL DECISION. November 14, 2017 Government Records Council Meeting
FINAL DECISION November 14, 2017 Government Records Council Meeting Shaquan Thompson Complainant v. NJ Department of Corrections Custodian of Record Complaint No. 2016-300 At the November 14, 2017 public
More informationMunicipal Records And Open Records. Zindia Thomas Assistant General Counsel Texas Municipal League
Municipal Records And Open Records Zindia Thomas Assistant General Counsel Texas Municipal League www.tml.org Table of Contents I. Municipal Court Records... 1 1. Are municipal court records subject to
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL JURY TRIALS BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE JON S.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STANDING ORDER FOR CIVIL JURY TRIALS BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE JON S. TIGAR A. Meeting and Disclosure Prior to Pretrial Conference At least
More informationDepositions, Interrogatories and Requests for Admission: Using Civil Discovery in TPR Cases
Depositions, Interrogatories and Requests for Admission: Using Civil Discovery in TPR Cases Jessica Hutson Polakowski 22 E. Mifflin St., Suite 600 Madison, WI 53703 608-229-2281 jpolakowski@reinhartlaw.com
More informationRULE 19 APPEALS TO THE CAREER SERVICE HEARING OFFICE (Effective January 10, 2018; Rule Revision Memo 33D)
RULE 19 APPEALS TO THE CAREER SERVICE HEARING OFFICE (Effective January 10, 2018; Rule Revision Memo 33D) Purpose Statement: The purpose of this rule is to provide a fair, efficient, and speedy administrative
More informationPUBLISHED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE BY THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
This information has been prepared for persons who wish to make or have made a complaint to The Lawyer Disciplinary Board about a lawyer. Please read it carefully. It explains the disciplinary procedures
More informationCommercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes)
Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes) Rules Amended and Effective October 1, 2013 Fee Schedule Amended and Effective June 1,
More informationCALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT Title 3. Civil Rules Division 8. Alternative Dispute Resolution Chapter 1. General Provisions
Page 1 Chapter 1. General Provisions Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.800 (2009) Rule 3.800. Definitions As used in this division: (1) "Alternative dispute resolution process" or "ADR process" means a process,
More informationDEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION. Notice; Method of Taking; Production at Deposition.
RULE 1.310. DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION (a) When Depositions May Be Taken. After commencement of the action any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral
More informationOVERVIEW OF EEOC CHARGE PROCESSING
OVERVIEW OF EEOC CHARGE PROCESSING CHARGE FILING AND NOTIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS A person who believes that he or she has been discriminated against in employment because of race, color, sex, national
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 7/11/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES DEPUTY SHERIFFS, Petitioner, B280676 (Los
More informationGeorgia State False Medicaid Claims Act
Georgia State False Medicaid Claims Act (Ga. Code Ann. 49-4-168 to 168.6) i 49-4-168. Definitions As used in this article, the term: (1) "Claim" includes any request or demand, whether under a contract
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. versus Civil Action 4:17 cv 02946
Case 4:17-cv-02946 Document 3 Filed in TXSD on 10/03/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas
More informationDALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION TRIAL SKILLS SECTION March 8, By: Robert L. Tobey Johnston Tobey, P.C.
DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION TRIAL SKILLS SECTION March 8, 2013 By: Robert L. Tobey Johnston Tobey, P.C. www.johnstontobey.com A. Lawyers owe their clients a fiduciary duty. Breach of fiduciary duty involves
More informationTransparency Laws: Brown Act and Public Records Act for Public Education Agencies
Transparency Laws: Brown Act and Public Records Act for Public Education Agencies Presented By: Mary Dowell February 22, 2017 Today s Agenda Brown Act Public Meeting Law Who is covered? Meetings and agendas
More informationCase: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883
Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., and ROBERT HART, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN
More informationThe Pretrial Conference
CHAPTER 14 NOVEMBER, 2010 The Pretrial Conference Written by Eric Blumenson * Table of Contents: 14.1 Generally... 1 14.2 Subject Matter of the Conference... 3 14.3 Conference Report and Its Effect on
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX
October 1, 1996 Last Update: February 23, 2018 Index Page 1 RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX RULE 1 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION...
More informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ORDER I. BACKGROUND
Case: 1:10-cv-00568 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/07/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:276 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY ) ) Plaintiff, )
More informationReferred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. SUMMARY Revises provisions relating to ethics in government.
A.B. 0 ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 0 COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE OPERATIONS AND ELECTIONS (ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION ON ETHICS) PREFILED DECEMBER, Referred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections SUMMARY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. * Case No. 17-cv-2006-EH * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., * Plaintiff * v. * Case No. 17-cv-2006-EH LINDA H. LAMONE, et al., * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DEFENDANT
More informationALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY GUIDE
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS: INTRODUCTION WHAT IS COVERED BY ADR STEPS TO RESOLVING YOUR DISPUTE OPEN DOOR POLICY CONCILIATION ARBITRATION FAQ S Rev. 05/14/2015 CRACKER
More informationThe 30.02(6), or 30(b)(6), Witness: Proper Notice, Preparation, and Deposition Techniques
The 30.02(6), or 30(b)(6), Witness: Proper Notice, Preparation, and Deposition Techniques Materials By: James Bryan Moseley Moseley & Moseley, Attorneys At Law 237 Castlewood Drive, Suite D Murfreesboro,
More informationAPPENDIX C OFFICE OF STUDENT CONDUCT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE
APPENDIX C OFFICE OF STUDENT CONDUCT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE Pre Hearing: The investigator will forward the investigative report to the Office of Student Conduct. The Director of the Office of Student Conduct
More informationAdam D. Snyder Office of the Maryland Attorney General Maryland Municipal League, Annual Meeting June 9, 2014
Adam D. Snyder Office of the Maryland Attorney General Maryland Municipal League, Annual Meeting June 9, 2014 Public Information Act Annotated Code of Maryland State Government Article Sections 10-611
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More information