Felix et al v. The State of California et al

Filing 46

ORDER re INFORMAL TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONFERENCE, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/15/2015. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT FELIX and JACK PHELPS,
individuals,

12
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:13-cv-561-SKO
ORDER RE INFORMAL TELEPHONIC
DISCOVERY DISPUTE CONFERENCE

13
v.
14
15
16
17
18

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES, OFFICE OF PROTECTIVE
SERVICES,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

19
20

The parties, as well as counsel for third-party deponents, appeared on January 14, 2015, for

21 an informal telephonic discovery dispute conference regarding third-party witness deposition
22 testimony. Lawrence King, Esq., appeared for third-party deponents Woodside, Huff, and Arcure
23 who have either been deposed or have been served with deposition notices by Defendants. Kevin
24 Schwin, Esq., and Dean Gordon, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Mary Horst, Esq.,
25 appeared on behalf of Defendants.
26

Mr. King presented concerns regarding potential retaliation against third-party deponents

27 Woodside, Huff, and Arcure based on statements that have been made or may be made during
28 their depositions.

Mr. King sought a protective order precluding Defendants' counsel from

1 disclosing statements made during the third-party depositions.
2

After considering the parties informal briefs and argument, the Court finds a protective

3 order is not warranted to sufficiently enable witnesses to testify truthfully without fear of
4 retaliation. While the Court understands the third-party deponents' fears, the Court is also mindful
5 that Defendants are entitled to conduct the necessary investigation to defend the action and cannot
6 be precluded from such investigation. To balance the interests of the parties, the Court and the
7 parties' counsel discussed a specific admonition that counsel shall make to their clients not to
8 engage in any retaliatory conduct.
9

The Court also hereby ADMONISHES ALL PARTIES that engaging in any form of

10 retaliatory conduct for statements made by third-party deponents Woodside, Huff, and Arcure, or
11 any witness or party, is unlawful and there will be severe and adverse consequences for any
12 person or party engaging in such behavior.
13

Finally, the parties requested that the non-expert discovery deadline be extended to March

14 13, 2015, to accommodate certain depositions which have been postponed until after mediation
15 next week as a cost-saving measure. The parties agreed that no other scheduling deadlines
16 required modification, and they agreed to draft and submit a stipulation for the Court's review.
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 15, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2