Doe

Doe v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 10, 20232:21-cv-01438California2,856 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA DOE, et al, 2:21-cv-01438-MCE-CKD Plaintiffs, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.

17 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 40) is before the court. After review of the parties’ joint statement on the discovery dispute (ECF No. 42), the court finds oral argument to be unnecessary. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for March 15, 2023 will be vacated. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will grant, in part, the motion. I. Background As relevant to the current motion, the plaintiffs allege they were coerced by Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Darryl Roderick into vacating their apartment without legal process. (ECF No. 42 at 5.) Plaintiffs allege Roderick demanded plaintiff Maria Doe “speak English,” refused to provide interpretation, and used threats of force to illegally evict the plaintiffs. (Id.) The defendants who oppose this motion deny that Roderick effected an eviction and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.