Hargrove v. City of Bakersfield et al

Filing 35

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/26/2019. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TATYANA HARGROVE, 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE (Doc. 33) CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., 15 16 Case No.: 1:17-cv-01743- JLT Defendants. The Court held an informal conference re: discovery dispute (Doc. 33), counsel and the Court 17 discussed several issues of concern by the plaintiff. The parties agreed to resolve a couple of the issues 18 but could not resolve others. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. No later than May 10, 2019, the City of Bakersfield will provide a statement made under 20 penalty of perjury that the reason Officer Moore and the K-9 he handled at the time of the incident 21 involving the plaintiff no longer work together, is completely unrelated to the incident involving the 22 plaintiff. The plaintiff agrees that with this statement, she no longer seeks responses to categories 17 23 and 18 listed in the deposition notice to the City; 24 2. No later than April 29, 2019, defense counsel SHALL notify plaintiff’s counsel whether 25 the City, through Police Chief Lyle Martin or otherwise, will be called to testify at trial to disagree with 26 the statements attributed to Chief Martin by the plaintiff’s parents and which, they claim were made 27 during a telephone call about the incident with the plaintiff. If the City intends to call such a witness, 28 the plaintiff may file a motion to compel the deposition of Chief Martin no later than May 10, 2019. If the plaintiff files this motion, she SHALL address the issue of timeliness and the factors related to an 1 2 apex witness deposition; 3. No later than April 29, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel SHALL notify defense counsel whether 3 she will persist in her objections to the instructions not to answer given to the City’s representative at 4 the deposition. If the plaintiff will persist in these objections, the defense SHALL file a motion for 5 protective order no later than May 10, 2019. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) [“A person may instruct a 6 deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by 7 the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).”] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?