Puckett

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY PHILLIP PUCKETT, No. 2:22-cv-0350 KJM DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et la., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 22, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to find defendants in contempt, which is 18 noticed for hearing before the undersigned on April 5, 2024. (ECF No. 123.) On March 29, 19 2024, defendants filed an opposition. (ECF No. 142.) 20 After reviewing the parties’ briefing, the dispute at issue appears to raise at least three 21 issues based on defense counsel’s conduct: (1) the failure to timely comply with the court’s 22 February 12, 2024 order; (2) the production of over 4,000 pages of documents previously 23 represented to the court to not exist; and (3) defense counsel’s continued refusal to provide 24 sufficient specificity when producing or not producing documents so as to allow the court and 25 plaintiff to determine whether there was due diligence and a reasonable inquiry in searching for 26 documents. As discussed below,…