Padilla v. Beard et al

Filing 91

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/30/15 GRANTING 87 Application to modify this Courts December 10, 2015 Order is granted. The Order is hereby modified to permit Plaintiff to appear for his further deposition in Ventura County. The parties shall arrange for the availability of videoconferencing, should Court supervision be required. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
LORI RIFKIN – 244081 1 RIFKIN LAW OFFICE P.O Box 19169 2 Oakland, California 94169 Telephone: (415) 685-3591 3 Facsimile: (510) 255-6266 Email: lrifkin@rifkinlawoffice.com 4 Attorney for Plaintiff 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION 9 10 11 Jermaine Padilla, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. Jeffrey Beard, in his individual capacity 14 and official capacity as Secretary for the California Dept. of Corrections and 15 Rehabilitation, Michael Stainer, in his individual capacity and official capacity as 16 Director of Adult Institutions for California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 17 Connie Gipson, in her individual capacity, Dave Davies, in his official capacity as 18 Acting Warden of California State Prison Corcoran, Ernest Wagner, M.D., in his 19 individual capacity, M. Godina, M. Drew, R. Pruneda, R. Martinez, J. Acevedo, C. 20 Garcia, E. Silva, and Does 1-10, in their individual capacities, 21 Defendants. 22 Case No. 2:14-cv-01118-KJM-CKD PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION & PROPOSED ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF DECEMBER 10, 2015 ORDER Judge: Hon. Carolyn K. Delaney 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECEMBER 10, 2015 ORDER 1 2 Plaintiff hereby requests a modification of the December 10, 2015 Order issued by 3 the Court concerning Plaintiff’s motion to terminate his deposition and Defendants’ 4 motion to compel the deposition. The Court ordered that Plaintiff’s further deposition is 5 limited to three hours and “shall be conducted at the federal courthouse, on a date 6 coordinated with the court’s courtroom deputy, so as to allow court supervision of said 7 deposition.” 12/10/15 Order at 1:24-26. Plaintiff does not seek modification of the order 8 granting his further deposition nor of court supervision. However, because of the 9 substantial burden and hardship to Plaintiff in complying with the order as issued, Plaintiff 10 seeks a modification to allow the Court to supervise his further deposition by 11 videoconference. 12 On December 10, 2015, following the Court’s order, Defendants’ counsel contacted 13 Plaintiff’s counsel by e-mail and requested dates during the last week of December or first 14 week of January for Plaintiff’s deposition. Declaration of Lori Rifkin in Support of 15 Plaintiff’s Application for Modification (“Rifkin Decl.”) at ¶ 2 & Ex. A. 16 Plaintiff lives in Ventura County, receives social security as his sole means of 17 income, has no means of transportation, and is currently still under Post-Release 18 Community Supervision which limits his ability to travel outside Ventura County. Rifkin 19 Decl. ¶ 3. He currently resides at a sober living home where he receives daily medication 20 and assistance. Id. Travel, which would also necessitate lodging, to the federal courthouse 21 in Sacramento for the three-hour deposition would therefore impose disproportionate 22 hardship on Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel responded to Defendants’ e-mail on December 23 11, 2015 proposing that Plaintiff’s deposition be videoconferenced so that Plaintiff and his 24 counsel can be located in Ventura County, Defendants’ counsel can be located either in 25 Sacramento or Ventura County at their choosing, and the Court can supervise the 26 deposition by videoconference from the Sacramento courthouse. Id.¶ 4 & Ex. B. 27 Plaintiff’s counsel stated that such deposition could be completed January 6 or 7, per the 28 2 PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECEMBER 10, 2015 ORDER 1 schedule requested. Id. Defendants’ counsel rejected this proposal and has offered no 2 other alternatives, despite Plaintiff’s further request. Id. ¶ 5-7 & Exs. C & D. Prior to the 3 Court’s order on this matter, Defendant’s counsel had indicated Defendants’ intent to 4 conduct Plaintiff’s further deposition in Ventura County. Id. ¶ 8 & Ex. E. 5 Through this request, Plaintiff is not seeking to avoid his further deposition and 6 Plaintiff’s counsel believes the proposal of videoconference is reasonable and meets the 7 spirit of the Court’s order without imposing undue hardship on any party, especially given 8 that Defendants’ counsel can elect to be physically present in Ventura County with 9 Plaintiff or to be in Sacramento, in which Defendants’ counsel’s office is located. Rifkin 10 Decl. ¶ 9. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court modify the December 11 10, 2015 order to permit supervision of Plaintiff’s further deposition by videoconference. 12 13 14 DATED: December 22, 2015 Respectfully submitted, RIFKIN LAW OFFICE 15 16 By: /s/ Lori Rifkin Lori Rifkin 17 18 Attorney for Plaintiff 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// 2 PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECEMBER 10, 2015 ORDER 1 ORDER 2 Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s application to modify this Court’s December 10, 2015 3 Order is granted. The Order is hereby modified to permit Plaintiff to appear for his further 4 deposition in Ventura County. The parties shall arrange for the availability of videoconferencing, 5 should Court supervision be required. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 Dated: December 30, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECEMBER 10, 2015 ORDER

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?