concerning avoiding use of excessive force,” as well as "correct training and procedures for take downs.” (See ACMC and Lo-rig’s Obj. Ex. A.) 16 .Excerpts from the Odom deposition are attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Stephine M. Wells, filed July 8, 2003. 17 . Harvey does not expressly allege in the FAC that any defendant violated her right to equal protection. Both Dr. Lorig and ACMC, however, have discussed the merits of any such claim, to the extent Harvey is asserting one. 18 . Because the Court has found that Harvey cannot prevail on her claim that Dr. Lorig deprived her of a federal right, the Court will analyze the Monell claim against ACMC with reference to the actions of ACMC employees other than Dr. Lorig. See Orin v. Barclay, 272 F.3d 1207, 1217 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied, 536 U.S. 958, 122 S.Ct. 2661,
holding as a matter of law that the city is not an appropriate law enforcement authority under section 554002b for the reporting of another employees violation of federal or state sexual harassment laws holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding that disclosure of grandjury testimony of city employees was proper because they cannot be expected to have any personal privacy interest in their duties as city employees holding monell claim fails as a matter of law unless a city employees conduct violates one of the plaintiffs federal rights