Cruz v. City of Anaheim

Ninth Circuit

Cruz v. City of Anaheim

584 F. App'x 696

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 28, 2014

DocketNo. 12-55481

StatusPublished

This text of 584 F. App'x 696 (Cruz v. City of Anaheim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cruz v. City of Anaheim, 584 F. App'x 696 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

1. Because plaintiffs withdrew their motion to amend their complaint before the district court ruled on it, they’ve waived any argument that the court should’ve granted their motion. See, e.g., Dodd v. Hood River Cnty., 59 F.3d 852, 863 (9th Cir.1995).

2. We affirm the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s pretrial order regarding their effort to depose the confidential informant. Given that the confidential informant didn’t witness the shooting, and that the defendants have presented credible evidence that revealing the informant’s identity could harm both the informant and law enforcement efforts, the district court’s decision to protect the informant’s identity wasn’t clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59-62, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957).

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

1. Because plaintiffs withdrew their motion to amend their complaint before the district court ruled on it, they’ve waived any argument that the court should’ve granted their motion. See, e.g., Dodd v. Hood River Cnty., 59 F.3d 852, 863 (9th Cir.1995).

2. We affirm the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s pretrial order regarding their effort to depose the confidential informant. Given that the confidential informant didn’t witness the shooting, and that the defendants have presented credible evidence that revealing the informant’s identity could harm both the informant and law enforcement efforts, the district court’s decision to protect the informant’s identity wasn’t clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59-62, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957).

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

584 F. App'x 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-city-of-anaheim-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack