1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENTS Hearing Date: Hearing Time: Courtroom: Judge: March 13th, 2012 10:00 A.M. 2 Howard R. Lloyd

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENTS TO THE HONORABLE HOWARD R. LLOYD, DISTRICT JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Tuesday, March 13th, 2012, at 10:00 A.M., in Courtroom 2 of the above-stated court, located at 280 South First Street, on the 5th Floor, in San Jose, Plaintiff, James Alan Bush, will, and hereby does, move for an order requiring Defendant Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office to produce any and all statements made by the aforesaid defendant concerning this action, and in regards to this matter NOTICE PAGE 1 OF 2 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

as pending against the defendant and the service of process to the defendant by the plaintiff, as representative counsel in a matter heard in a state court, for the purposes of an upcoming hearing in the instant matter, in which the requested information is crucial to the plaintiffs argument. This motion will be made on the ground that, in spite of the plaintiffs diligent effort to obtain the requested information without court intervention, which included phone calls, e-mails, a letter, and a Rule 26(b) (C) formal request, the defendant not only failed to provide (3) the requested discovery, but failed to even discuss the request; in addition, although the defendant was required to serve a written response to the request no later than 30 days after the date that the plaintiffs request was received, at least indicating their intent to comply with it [see Rule 34(b) the defendant failed to even acknowledge that a request ], was received. Dated: January 17th, 2012 By: X James Alan Bush Plaintiff in pro per // // // // // // // // // NOTICE PAGE 2 OF 2 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENT Hearing Date: Hearing Time: Courtroom: Judge: RELIEF REQUESTED [date] [time] [#] Howard R. Lloyd

Plaintiff moves this court for an order, pursuant to Rule 26(b) (C) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, directing Defendant, Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office to produce any and all statements made by the aforesaid defendant concerning this action, and in regards to this matter as pending against the defendant and the service of summons to the defendant by the plaintiff, which were made in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Criminal Division, in case number CC828198, on or around July 15th, 2010. MOTION PAGE 1 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

GROUNDS FOR RELIEF 1. On January 11th, 2012, Plaintiff served the Santa Clara County Office of the County Counsel, counsel for the defendants, a formal request to produce any and all prior statements made by its officers and employees concerning this action or its subject matter that are within the possession and control of the defendant. 2. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Formal Request for Production is attached to the supporting declaration of the plaintiff, which specifically informed the defendant and counsel of their obligations to produce these statements under the provisions of Rule 26(b) (C) of the (3) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Rule 26(b) (C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure confers an (3) absolute right to obtain these types of statements both parties and non-party witnesses. The rule carefully defines the scope of what constitutes statements in this context, and the request specifically excludes any claim of work product privilege for these types of statements, expressly providing that they may be obtained by the party or witness making them on a mere request, without the type of showing that would normally apply if the work product protection applied. 4. Defendant has failed and refused to comply with its duties to provide these statements. Not only does Rule 26(b) (C) eliminate almost all (3) objection to compliance, failure to file a written response to the formal Rule 34 request amounts to a waiver of any privileges and objections that could conceivably have been asserted in response. 5. Rule 26(b) (C) states that if a request for prior statements is (3) refused, the person [making the request] may move for a court order compelling compliance. Rule 26(b) (3) specifically states that the MOTION PAGE 2 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

sanction provisions of Rule 37(a) (5) apply to and authorize an award of expenses to the person making the motion. The supporting declaration of the plaintiff establishes the expense incurred in the making of this motion, including the amount of reasonable attorneys fees. CERTIFICATE OF ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE ISSUE WITHOUT COURT MOTION Pursuant to the Standing Order Re: Civil Discovery Disputes and Rule 37(a) (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I certify (3) by signing this motion that, prior to filing of this motion to compel discovery, I did make several attempts to confer with counsel for the Defendant Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office and attempted to secure the statement without court action. All of my attempts, more fully documented in the supporting declaration of the plaintiff, were unsuccessful. SUPPORTING PAPERS This motion is based on this document, on the supporting declaration of the plaintiff, on the Certificate of Service of this motion and the aforesaid declaration, on all of the pleadings and papers already on file in this action, and on whatever evidence and argument may be allowed at a hearing on this motion. Dated: February 17th, 2012 By: X James Alan Bush Plaintiff in pro per // // // // // MOTION PAGE 3 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENTS

Judge Howard R. Lloyd

I, James Alan Bush, in support of the attached motion for production of prior statements, declare the following: 1. I am the plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, which seeks redress for multiple and ongoing civil rights violations under Title 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 and for other torts as defined by California state law. 2. I am fully competent to make this declaration, and I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. If so called, I would be able to testify to these facts truthfully. 3. The discovery requested of Defendant Santa Clara County Public DECLARATION PAGE 1 OF 4 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Defenders Office is for the production of prior statements, and, in particular, any and all statements made by the defendant as representative counsel in case number CC828198, which was heard in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, in regards to their receipt of a copy of the complaint in this matter, notice of these proceedings, and a request for a waiver of service of summons. 4. On April 4th, 2012, a hearing will be held in which the Court will consider whether to vacate its order of dismissal against the defendant, which was issued for the failure to file proof of service of summons, and evidence must be presented to demonstrate that service of summons was sufficient in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4(d) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The requested discovery will show that the defendant has not only previously acknowledged receipt of a request for a waiver of summons, a notice of lawsuit, and a copy of the complaint at a hearing in another matter in the Superior Court, but based its request to be relieved of counsel in the aforementioned matter on the ground that this action was pending against them and, consequently, a conflict of interest existed. 5. In spite of a good faith attempt to confer with counsel for the defendant, namely, Neysa Fligor, Deputy Counsel, Santa Clara County Counsel, the defendant has failed to make a disclosure required by Rules 26(b) (C) and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (3) 6. In addition to multiple voice messages to counsel for the defendant, these specific actions were taken in order to obtain the requested discovery without court intervention: a. On December 20th, 2011, counsel for the defendant was requested by e-mail to stipulate to the fact that the notice of lawsuit DECLARATION PAGE 2 OF 4 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7.

and request for a waiver of service of summons was received by the defendant [see Exhibit A]. The e-mail was followed by two unreturned calls to said counsel. b. On January 10th, 2012, a letter was mailed, first-class, to counsel for the defendant [see Exhibit B], which requested the aforedescribed stipulation, specifically, that the defendant acknowledged in a state court that service of process was made in this case, and which advised the defendant of the time-sensitive nature of the information, specifically, that a hearing in which the information was required was pending, their obligation under Rule 26(b) (C) to provide the requested information. Two calls made to (3) said counsel were not returned. c. On January 12th, 2012, a formal request for the production of prior statements per Rule 26(b) (C) of the Federal Rules of Civil (3) Procedure was served on the defendant through its counsel, which also advised the defendant that a response was required within 30 days of the request per Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the request, which was filed with the clerk on that same day, is attached as Exhibit C. The aforedescribed are the requisites steps mandated by Rule 37 prior to bringing a motion to compel discovery, which also conform to the requirements of the standing order re: civil discovery disputes, in that attempts were made via telephone, e-mail, and correspondence, to try to obtain the requested information without court intervention. 8. In spite of the actions taken to obtain the requested discovery, the defendant and their counsel have failed to provide the requested discovery or to even at least arrange a meeting to discuss the DECLARATION PAGE 3 OF 4 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

request. 9. Accordingly, the Court is hereby requested to issue an order to the defendant as follows: a. that the defendant respond to the formal request of the plaintiff at least 15 days prior to the hearing scheduled on April 4th, 2012; and, b. that the failure of the defendant to respond to the formal request for discovery in the manner requested and within the time allotted will result in sanctions and/or an entry of an order in favor of the plaintiff. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on February 17th, 2012, in San Jose, California. Dated: January 17th, 2012 By: X James Alan Bush Plaintiff in pro per // // // // // // //

DECLARATION

PAGE 4 OF 4

08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENTS

Judge Howard R. Lloyd

In support of the attached Motion for Production of Prior Statements, Plaintiff proffers the following argument and points of law: I. ARGUMENT A. THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE MOTION IS APPROPRIATE

If a party fails to respond to a discovery request made pursuant to Rule 26(b) (C), the party making the request may move to compel (3) disclosure per Rule 37(a) (A), provided reasonable notice was given (3) to the dilatory party, which expressely authorizes the court to issue such an order [see Fed R Civ P 37(a); see also Patelco Credit Union v. MEMORANDA PAGE 1 OF 4 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 // //

Shani (9th Cir. 2001) 262 F3d 897, 913 (Rule 37(a) (A) is the proper (3) vehicle to address instances in which the responding party fails to make or cooperate in providing the requested discovery) ]. Requiring the defendant to respond to the request for discovery fully and without objection is proper because any objections have been waived by virtue of the defendants failure to provide a response within the time allowed by Rule 26(b) (C) [see Fed R Civ P 33(b) (3) (4) (Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived...) ]. B. PLAINTIFF GAVE REASONABLE NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT PRIOR TO BRINGING THIS MOTION Requiring Defendant Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office to respond to the plaintiffs formal request for discovery not only establishes a definite date for measuring compliance, it provides the defendant with a time to comply that is reasonable, given the time that has already passed since the first request was made, i.e., December 20th, 2011. C. PLAINTIFF MADE A GOOD-FAITH ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY WITHOUT COURT INTERVENTION Plaintiff included in this motion a certification that he has attempted to confer with the defendant in good faith, and in an effort to secure the disclosure without court action within the meaning of Rule 37(a) (B), in that the plaintiff informed (3) the defendant in letters and phone calls and e-mails that they must provide a response within the time period allotted by Rule 26(b) (C). (3)

MEMORANDA

PAGE 2 OF 4

08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

D.

PLAINTIFF IN GOOD FAITH EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INFORMATION REQUESTED TO THE DEFENDANT The plaintiffs request for discovery was served in good faith for the purposes of securing information that is important to the plaintiff in the investigation and preparation for a hearing on a motion to vacate the order of dismissal of this case against the defendant. In his correspondence to the defendant [see Exhibits A and B], the plaintiff emphasized the urgency and relevance of the information requested, which is more fully explained in the attached declaration.

E.

DEFENDANT HAS NO EXCUSES AVAILABLE FOR FAILING TO RESPOND As noted above, the formal request for discovery in this case was served in good faith for legitimate purposes. In any event, Rule 37(d) (2) expressely states that the failure to serve a response is not excused on the ground that the discovery sought was objectionable, unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for a protective order under Rule 26(c).

F.

DEFENDANT CANNOT CLAIM ANY PRIVILEGE OR WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION FOR THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY Under Rule 26(b) (C), no privilege or work product protection may (3) be claimed for any prior statement of the defendant concerning this action or its subject matter.

G.

THE MEET-AND-CONFER REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE WAIVED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAS REFUSED TO CONFER WITH THE PLAINTIFF Per ND Cal Civ LR 37-1(a), the court at the San Jose Division in the Northern District of California will not entertain a motion to resolve a discovery dispute unless counsel has previously

MEMORANDA

PAGE 3 OF 4

08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MEMORANDA H.

conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve said dispute; however, in this case, because the dispute is caused by the refusal and/or failure of the defendant to confer, the same rule allows this Court to issue an order compelling discovery, and even to impose sanctions. THIS MOTION IS TIMELY MADE BECAUSE IT WAS FILED SEVEN COURT DAYS AFTER DISCOVERY CUTOFF In the Northern District of California, no motions to compel discovery may be filed more than seven days after the discovery cutoff for fact discovery. A discovery cutoff is the date by which all responses to discovery are due and by which all responses to discovery requests are due [ND Cal Civ LR 26-2]. II. CONCLUSION Based on the importance of the issue at stake in the upcoming hearing on the motion to vacate the order of dismissal against the defendant, and on the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues presented therein the motion (see Declaration of Plaintiff, attached), this Court should grant the relief sought by this motion. Dated: January 17th, 2012 By: X James Alan Bush Plaintiff in pro per // // // // // // PAGE 4 OF 4 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK EXHIBIT A E-MAIL TO NEYSA FLIGOR, DEPUTY COUNSEL, SANTA CLARA COUNTY COUNSEL, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, DATED DECEMBER 20TH, 2011

EXHIBIT A Plaintiff hereby incorporates Exhibit A, in support of the attached Motion for Production of Prior Statements, which requests by e-mail a stipulation to the fact that Defendant Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office acknowledged in a state court that they were notified of the lawsuit pending against them, and that they received a copy of the summons and complaint, as well as a request for a waiver of service of summons; it also emphasizes the relevance and time-sensitive nature of the requested information. EXHIBIT A PAGE 1 OF 2 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

From: Subject: Date: To:

James Bush <theoknock@yahoo.com> C 08-01354 - Acknowledgment of Receipt of Waiver of Service of Summons December 20, 2011 9:34:16 PM PST neysa.igor@cco.sccgov.org

Dear Ms. Fligor: If you are not the counsel-of-record for the above-referenced case, kindly forward this e-mail to such; otherwise, I would like you to stipulate to the fact that you received a waiver of service of summons on behalf of the defendants you represent. This is needed as soon as possible, as this fact will determine whether an attempt was made by me to serve the county defendants, and whether the court will vacate its order of dismissal against these defendants for failure to serve summons on them. This fact was presented in another case by the Public Defender's Office (one of the defendants you represent), in order to justify relief as the appointed counsel in that case. At that time, the public defender representing me stated to the presiding judge that you were contacted by them in order to verify that a pending civil matter existed against them, which you confirmed by stating that you had received a notice of the suit and a waiver of service. The judge in that case used that fact to make the determination that a conflict of interest existed between me and the public defender's office, and, consequently, he relieved the public defender's office as counsel, and appointed an alternate defender in their stead. I hope this refreshes your memory of the past, and that I can get an identical admission of fact from you for my present needs. Please contact me with your decision within three (3) days. Thanks! James Alan Bush (408) 791-4866 471 East Julian Street San Jose, CA 95112

EXHIBIT A

PAGE 2 OF 2

08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C Plaintiff hereby incorporates Exhibit C, in support of the attached Motion for Production of Prior Statements, which requests by letter that Defendant Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office stipulate to facts regarding service of process. It also explains the need for the requested information, i.e., that it is a determinative factor in an upcoming hearing on a motion to vacate the order of dismissal against the defendant, and emphasizes the relevance and time-sensitive nature of the requested information. EXHIBIT B PAGE 1 OF 2 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Counsel ATTN: Ms. Neysa Fligor, Deputy Counsel 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, California 95110 (408) 299-5900 In re stipulation to receipt of notice of lawsuit and waiver of service of summons for case no. 08-cv-01354 LHK To Ms. Neysa Fligor, Deputy Counsel, Santa Clara County Counsel: This letter follows several phone calls and e-mails regarding a stipulation to the fact that a waiver of service of summons was received by the Santa Clara County Counsel on behalf of the county defendants it represents in the above-referenced casea fact that will determine whether service was made on these defendants, and whether the Court will vacate its order of dismissal against them. That a notice and waiver was received by at least one county defendant, specifically, the Santa Clara County Office of the Public Defender, was confirmed by the Santa Clara County Counsel, and is a matter of record in the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, Criminal Division, Case No. CC828198. In fact, that a pending civil matter existed against that defendant formed the basis for a determination by the presiding judge in that case, namely, the Honorable Jess Valencia, Jr., that a conflict of interest existed, thereby justifying the relief of the defendant as counsel. An identical admission of fact by stipulation is needed for an upcoming hearing on a Motion for Relief from Order, which will be held on April 12th, 2012, at 1:30 pm, in Department 8 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Judge Lucy H. Koh, presiding. Accordingly, please provide me with the requested stipulation within 15 days of the date of this letter. If it is not received on or before January 25th, 2012, I will seek to obtain said stipulation by means of discovery. Sincerely,

James Alan Bush Plaintiff in pro per

Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT B

PAGE 2 OF 2

08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK EXHIBIT D FORMAL REQUEST TO DEFENDANT SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENTS

EXHIBIT D Plaintiff hereby incorporates Exhibit D, in support of the attached Motion for Production of Prior Statements, which formally requests that Defendant Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office produce any and all statements made by Defendant Santa Clara County Office of the Public Defender concerning this action or its subject matter, and which specifically informs the aforesaid defendants of their obligation to produce these statements per Rule 26(b) (C) of the Federal Rules of Civil (3) Procedure. EXHIBIT D PAGE 1 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT D PAGE 2 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NO.: James Alan Bush Santa Clara County Counsel 1 James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENT [Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), 34] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, makes the following request pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 34(b), you are required to serve, no later than 30 days after the date that this request was served on you, a written response to this request, indicating whether you will comply with this request. REQUEST PAGE 1 OF 2 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 EXHIBIT D PAGE 3 OF 3 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REQUEST PAGE 2 OF 2 You are requested to produce any and all statements made by Defendant Santa Clara County Office of the Public Defender concerning this action or its subject matter, regardless of how obtained or maintained, and, in particular, those made in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Criminal Division, in case number CC828198, and in regards to this matter as pending against the aforesaid defendant and the service of summons to the defendant by the plaintiff. Under Rule 26(b) (C) of the (3) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no privilege or work product protection may be claimed for any prior statement of the defendant concerning the action or its subject matter. Pursuant to Rule 26(b) (C), the term statement means and includes any (3) statement previously made that is: 1. A written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it; or, 2. A contemporaneous stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, including a court transcription of it, that recites substantially verbatim the persons oral statement. TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER FOR COMPLIANCE The production of the requested statements will take place by e-mailing James Alan Bush at theoknock@yahoo.com, with the relevant files attached to that e-mail in a format readable as PDF. The e-mail and attachments should be sent no later than February 11th, 2012, at 5:00 P.M, and an acknowledgment of receipt of the e-mail will be supplied as appropriate. Dated: January 11th, 2012 By: X James Alan Bush Plaintiff in pro per // 08-cv-01354 (PR) JF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

James Alan Bush 471 East Julian Street San Jose, California 95112 (408) 791-4866 theoknock@yahoo.com Plaintiff in pro per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

James Alan Bush, Plaintiff, v. Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-01354 LHK [PROPOSED] ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENT Hearing Date: Hearing Time: Courtroom: Judge: [date] [time] [#] Hon. Howard R. Lloyd

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PRIOR STATEMENTS The Motion of Plaintiff for Production of Prior Statements to compel Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office to produce the statements specified by the plaintiff. IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The motion is GRANTED; 2. The statements as made by the defendant concerning this action, and in regards to this matter as pending against the defendant and the service of summons to the defendant by the plaintiff, which were [PROPOSED] ORDER PAGE 1 OF 2 08-cv-01354 LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

made in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Criminal Division, in case number CC828198, on or around July 15th, 2010. 3. The Court also finds that the failure of the defendant to produce the requested statements was without substantial justification within the meaning of Rule 37(a) (A) (5) (ii) in that under Rule 34(b), the defendant was required to serve, no later than 30 days after the date that the plaintiffs request was served, a written response to the request, indicating their intent to comply with it. 4. Counsel and the defendant are admonished that the failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in severe sanctions, including a citation for contempt of court. Dated: February 17th, 2012 Signed: X Howard R. Lloyd United States District Judge // // // // // // // // // // // // [PROPOSED] ORDER PAGE 2 OF 2 08-cv-01354 LHK