Ambat et al v. City & County of San Francisco et al

Filing 160

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR FURTHER DEPOSITION OF CAPTAIN PECOT[Docket No. 148] (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court agrees with defendants that it would be inappropriate for plaintiffs' counsel to question Capt. Pecot regarding details of the Pecot matter outside the presence of counsel who represents her in that case. Defendants argues, however, that plaintiffs are not entitled to re-depose Capt. Pecot even with her other counsel present because information regarding the Pecot case is not relevant to plaintiffs' claims in this case. In Pecot, Capt. Pecot and the other plaintiffs assert that the v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendants. / MERCY AMBAT, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C 07-03622 SI ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR FURTHER DEPOSITION OF CAPTAIN PECOT [Docket No. 148] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiffs have filed a discovery motion requesting the Court to direct defendants to produce Captain Johna Pecot for further deposition. Plaintiffs' counsel deposed Capt. Pecot on September 1, 2009. At the deposition, plaintiffs' counsel sought to ask Capt. Pecot questions regarding Pecot, et al. v. San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association, No. 08-5125 CRB, a lawsuit filed by Capt. Pecot and other high-ranking Sheriff's Department officials against the San Francisco Deputy Sheriff's Association in 2008. Defense counsel objected to and instructed Capt. Pecot not to answer the questions on the ground she is represented in the Pecot action by separate counsel who was not present at the deposition. Plaintiffs now seek an order compelling defendants to produce Capt. Pecot for further deposition and directing defense counsel to permit her to answer questions relating to the Pecot action.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

sheriff's union and the individual defendants, including the union's president David Wong, committed various RICO violations including misappropriation of union funds. Defendants argue that questions about issues related to the Pecot case are not relevant to the claims or issues in the present case because the union and the individual defendants named in Pecot are not plaintiffs in this case, and because plaintiffs' claims of retaliation in this case are based on their actions in response to the gender-based staffing policy, not union membership or union activities. The court agrees with defendants. Neither the union nor any of the individual defendants in the Pecot case is currently a plaintiff in this case, and therefore any claim that the Pecot suit was filed as a retaliatory measure cannot be relevant to this case. Accordingly, plaintiffs' request to compel the production of Capt. Pecot for further deposition is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 6, 2009 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2