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

Filing 110

ORDER re 82 , 78 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Place of Depositions filed by F. Wong, City & County of San Francisco, Contreras, Phillip Wong, Francisco Ho, Terry, Wilson, Leroy Thomas, Wong, Gregory Dare, Frazier, Eric Oneal, Juan Gala, Heather Fong. (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2010)

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

Doc. 110

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

**E-filed 10/25/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Based on alleged prior conflicts between counsel for plaintiffs and members of the City Attorney's office in other litigation matters, defendants move for a protective order requiring that depositions in this action be held at City Hall or the courthouse, inside a security check point. Plaintiffs oppose, contending that the prior circumstances have been misrepresented, and that there has been no similar tension between counsel in this action in any event. Without deciding whether there is any objectively reasonable concern on the part of the City Attorney's office to support the relief it seeks, it appears that it would minimize peripheral and unnecessary disputes, and facilitate resolution of the merits of this action, to require that depositions v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al. Defendants. ____________________________________/ CHARLES GILLIS, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C 08-3871 RS ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

take place in the courthouse. Plaintiffs have not identified any prejudice to them that would arise from such a requirement; indeed it may even save them some costs. Accordingly, good cause appearing, defendants' motion is granted. The parties shall contact the Courtroom Deputy to make arrangements to use the courtroom or an attorney conference room for depositions. No stigma shall attach to plaintiffs' counsel by virtue of entry of this order; the allegations made against him in this motion have not been found to have merit. The City Attorney's order shall not cite this order in any subsequent application it may make for similar relief against plaintiffs' counsel in any other action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: October 25, 2010 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2