Singh, et al v. Sacramento County, et al
Filing
127
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 7/30/12 GRANTING 112 Motion to Compel; pltfs are granted leave to conduct by telephone the deposition of Lindsay Hayes for an additional hour. (Manzer, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
ESTATE OF BALJIT SINGH, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
No. CIV 2:09-cv-1439-JAM-JFM
11
vs.
12
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
13
Defendants.
ORDER
14
/
15
On July 26, 2012, the court held a discovery conference on plaintiffs’ June 15,
16
2012 motion to compel. Stewart Katz appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Defense counsel Sarah
17
Scott and Natasha Langenfeld were also present. Upon review of the motion, discussion with
18
counsel and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
19
This action arises out of the suicide of decedent Baljit Singh at the Sacramento
20
County Mail Jail while in custody of the defendants. By way of their motion to compel,
21
plaintiffs seek an opportunity to depose defendants’ expert, Lindsay Hayes, for an additional
22
hour. They also seek an order directing Hayes to respond to questions defense counsel forbade
23
him to answer, which include (a) questions regarding his being employed to testify at deposition
24
or at trial by an agency for whom he had previously provided a technical assistance report from
25
over four years ago, (b) questions regarding the total number of times that Hayes had previously
26
1
1
been retained as an expert witness to testify at trial or deposition from over four years ago, and
2
(c) questions regarding Hayes’s billing statements from Hayes’s previous work with defense
3
counsel in other litigation.
4
As to the length of Hayes’s deposition, Hayes was deposed on June 7, 2012 in
5
Boston, MA. The deposition was scheduled ahead of time to run from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. It
6
in fact started at 9:33 a.m. and ended at 3:38 p.m. with two breaks in-between. Hayes was thus
7
deposed for approximately 6 hours. Plaintiffs now seek to depose Hayes for an additional hour.
8
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Defendants oppose this request unpersuasively. Accordingly, this
9
request will be granted.
10
Regarding the scope of questions that plaintiffs may ask Hayes and to which
11
Hayes must respond, the court finds that defense counsel improperly instructed Hayes not to
12
answer. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2), “A person may instruct a
13
deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation
14
ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).” There is no suggestion that
15
Hayes’s responses to the questions posed by plaintiffs were subject to a limitation imposed by
16
this court or that plaintiffs’ questions were asked in “bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably
17
annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3). Insofar as
18
defendants assert a privacy privilege as to Hayes’s salary, the court does not find that such
19
information is protected. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 1993 advisory
20
committee notes. See also Silgan Containers v. National Union Fire Ins., 2011 WL 1058861
21
(N.D. Cal. 2011); Mendez v. Unum Provident Corp., 2006 WL 167663 (N.D. Cal. 2006); Rogers
22
v. U.S. Navy, 223 F.R.D. 533 (S.D. Cal. 2004). Because defendants were not entitled to prevent
23
Hayes from responding to plaintiffs’ questions, plaintiffs’ motion will be granted in its entirety.
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
2
1
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to
2
compel is granted. Plaintiffs are granted leave to conduct by telephone the deposition of Lindsay
3
Hayes for an additional hour. Defense counsel shall not prevent Hayes from testifying, except as
4
authorized pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2).
5
DATED: July 30, 2012.
6
7
8
9
/014;sing1439.disc3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?