Williams et al v. Troehler

Filing 62

STIPULATION and ORDER Regarding Submission of Deposition of Darren Hise for In Camera Review signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/23/2010. (Figueroa, O)

1 2

Rosemary T. McGuire, Esq. Bar No. 172549 Leslie M. Dillahunty, Esq. Bar No. 195262
WEAKLEY, ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP
1 6 3 0 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176 F r e s n o , California 93710 T e le p h o n e : [phone] F a c s im ile : [phone]

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 28

Attorneys for Defendant, MICHAEL TROEHLER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDALL EDGAR WILLIAMS, SANDRA WILLIAMS,

) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) MICHAEL J. TROEHLER, City of Fresno ) Police Officer, ) ) Defendant. ) _____________________________________ ) I

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01523-OWW-GSA STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING SUBMISSION OF DEPOSITION OF DARREN HISE FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW

Trial Date: August 31, 2010

Introduction The parties hereby request that the court conduct an in camera review of the deposition of Darren Hise. Mr. Hise is an expert designated by plaintiff on the issue of police procedures. He has recently given a deposition in the case of Muldrew v. County of Fresno, Case No. 1:09 CV-00023 OWW-DLB, a lawsuit in which he is a plaintiff. Defense counsel requested a copy of the deposition through Kim Thayer & Associates Court Reporters. The parties were advised of the request and Rayma Church, who represents Mr. Hise in his action against the County of Fresno and Mr. Williams in the instant action, objected to disclosure. Counsel for the parties met and conferred and have agreed to submit the deposition of Mr. Hise to the Court for an in-camera review to determine those portions that can be released to defense counsel. ____________________________
Stipulation Regarding Submission of Deposition of Darren Hise for In Camera Review

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 28 Plaintiff's Position:

II Positions of the Parties

It is the position of plaintiff's counsel that Mr. Hise's deposition in his employment action contains substantial amounts of personal and confidential information, including information relating to his medical care, which is not subject to disclosure. Defense Position: Mr. Hise holds himself out as an expert on issues related to police training, misconduct, and crime/accident reconstruction. His "expertise" is based on his tenure with the California Highway Patrol and his employment as a criminal defense investigator with the Fresno County Public Defender's Office. It is defendant's position that Mr. Hise's deposition testimony is relevant because it provides information relating to his background, training, and experience which cannot be separated from the substance of his proposed expert opinion. See Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex Co. Inc., 139 F.R.D. 384, 395 (N.D. Cal. 1991). In addition, the deposition testimony is relevant as it goes to Mr. Hise's credibility and reliability which are proper grounds for defense counsel to question an expert. Defendant should be allowed to challenge the expert witnesses reliability based on his prior deposition testimony relating to employment upon which he is basing his expertise. Because Mr. Hise is basing his testimony on his experience and knowledge gained with his former employer, the California Highway Patrol and his current employer, Fresno County, the defense should be allowed access to sworn testimony regarding his employment and present evidence based on that employment which may challenge his reliability, credibility and potential bias. The United States Supreme Court when addressing the application of the Daubert's gatekeeping requirement for expert testimony stated "[i]t is to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field." See Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999). /// /// ____________________________
Stipulation Regarding Submission of Deposition of Darren Hise for In Camera Review

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

California also law recognizes the right of a party to challenge the credibility and reliability of an expert through his background and experience within the field of claimed expertise. See People v. Dawkins, 10 Cal.App.4th. 565, 569 (1992). III Conclusion The parties request that the court review, in-camera, the deposition of Mr. Hise and determine which portions of the transcript should be disclosed. If the court is agreeable to this request, the deposition will be provided and a date and time convenient for the court. Respectfully submitted,

DATED: June 18, 2010 WEAKLEY, ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

By: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By: DATED: June 18, 2010

/s Rosemary T. McGuire Rosemary T. McGuire Attorney for Defendant

EMERSON, COREY, SORENSEN, CHURCH & LIBKE

/s/ Rayma Church Rayma Church Ryan Libke Attorneys for Randall Williams and Darren Hise

ORDER Upon a review of the stipulation of the parties, the Court agrees to complete an in camera review of the deposition transcript of Darren Hise. However, Defense counsel has previously indicated that a large portion of the deposition transcript is already public record as portions were filed in an opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment in Muldrew v. County of Fresno, Case No. 1:09 -cv-00023 OWW DLB. Accordingly, within five days of this order, defense counsel shall identify which pages of the ____________________________
Stipulation Regarding Submission of Deposition of Darren Hise for In Camera Review

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

transcript he already has in his possession. Similarly, within five days of this order, Plaintiff shall specifically identify which portions of the transcript he believes should not be released to Defendant by identifying the line and page number of the deposition transcript, as well as the basis for each objection. Plaintiff shall make arrangements to deliver the deposition transcript within five days of this order so the Court can review the material. Alternatively, the Court will entertain signing a stipulated protective order if the parties agree that the material is discoverable but is not suitable for public disclosure. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

June 23, 2010

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ____________________________
Stipulation Regarding Submission of Deposition of Darren Hise for In Camera Review

4