Haught v. City of Anderson et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 8/28/2013 DENYING 32 Motion to Quash. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KATRINA HAUGHT, 12 Plaintiff, vs. 13 14 No. 2:11-CV-1653-JAM-CMK ORDER CITY OF ANDERSON, et al., Defendants. 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action. 18 Pending before the court is non-party Bryan Benson’s motion to quash (Doc. 32). The matter 19 was heard before the undersigned on August 28, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in Redding, California. 20 John Dugan Barr, Esq., and Estee Lewis, Esq., appeared for plaintiff. Carrie Ann Frederickson, 21 Esq., appeared for defendants. Gary Lee Lacy, Esq., appeared for Benson. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 1 1 Plaintiff alleges that, on May 29, 2010, she was arrested by City of Anderson 2 police officer Goodwin. After the arrest, Goodwin “delivered custody of plaintiff” to fellow 3 officer Bryan Benson, who is not a defendant to this action. Plaintiff claims that the purpose of 4 the transfer was to allow Benson to transport plaintiff “unobserved and unchaperoned.” Plaintiff 5 claims that Benson deviated significantly from the route to the jail, drove to a remote location, 6 stopped the car, kept plaintiff in the car, and attempted to persuade plaintiff to perform various 7 sex acts on him. When plaintiff refused, Benson drove to a concealed location and raped 8 plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that, as a consequence, she “sustained severe physical and emotional 9 injuries. . . .” In additional to civil rights claims against individuals and the City of Anderson, 10 11 plaintiff asserts state law claims based on “assault, battery, rape, and kidnapping.” In his motion, Benson seeks to quash a subpoena to appear for a deposition on 12 August 29, 2013. Benson anticipates that, given the ongoing criminal proceedings against him, 13 he will assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to virtually, if not 14 all, questions which may be posed by at his deposition. He argues, therefor, that appearing for a 15 deposition under these circumstances would be futile and burdensome. 16 The court finds that Benson’s motion is premature. What Benson seeks is, in 17 essence, an order sustaining anticipated objections based on his Fifth Amendment privilege 18 against self-incrimination. At this juncture, however, the court can only speculate what 19 questions may be asked. Thus, it is impossible to evaluate whether the privilege against self- 20 incrimination would apply. The issue only becomes ripe for review when a question is asked 21 and an objection is made. Until then, the motion is premature and is denied as such. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 26 DATED: August 28, 2013 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

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?