Adams v. Albertson et al

Filing 129

ORDER DENYING RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, Order by Hon. William Alsup denying 126 Motion for relief from nondispositive pretrial order of magistrate judge.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

12
13

No. C 10-04787 WHA

MARK LETELL ADAMS,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,
v.

19

RONALD ALBERTSON individually in
his official capacity as a former San Carlos
Police Sergeant, MICHAEL ANDERSON
individually in his official capacity as a
former San Carlos Police Officer, JUSTIN
COUNCIL individually in his official
capacity as a former San Carlos Police
Officer, GREG ROTHAUS individually in
his official capacity as a former San Carlos
Police Chief, CITY OF SAN CARLOS,
CITY OF SAN CARLOS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1–100,

20

ORDER DENYING RELIEF
FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18

/

21
22

INTRODUCTION

23

In this Section 1983 action, plaintiff challenges a magistrate judge’s discovery order

24

permitting defendants to depose plaintiff’s wife and subpoena third parties for plaintiff’s

25

employment and medical records. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s request for relief from

26

that order is DENIED.

27
28

1

STATEMENT

2

Plaintiff Mark Adams claims that the City of San Carlos and its police department violated

3

his constitutional rights. Plaintiff seeks relief under Section 1983 for pain, loss of ability to work,

4

and other damages. This action arises from his April 2010 arrest for domestic violence. Plaintiff

5

was arrested after his wife’s doctor reported a suspicion of domestic violence. Ultimately, his

6

wife did not file a domestic violence complaint, and he was not prosecuted. He then filed and

7

litigated a motion for judicial finding of factual innocence. That motion was denied.

8
9

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this Section 1983 action in October 2010. After
the parties failed to resolve their discovery disputes, all discovery matters were referred to
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. On November 7, 2011, Magistrate Judge James issued an

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

order that permitted defendants to depose plaintiff’s wife, Teresa Adams, and ordered third

12

parties to comply with defendants’ subpoenas requesting plaintiff’s employment and medical

13

records (Dkt. No. 122). Plaintiff now seeks relief from that order.

14
15

ANALYSIS
When a magistrate judge’s pretrial order concerns a nondispositive issue, the district judge

16

must “set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” FRCP 72(a).

17

A “magistrate judge’s decision in such nondispositive matters is entitled to great deference by the

18

district court.” United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). As her order

19

is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, plaintiff’s motion requesting relief is DENIED.
DEPOSITION OF TERESA ADAMS.

20

1.

21

There are two marital privileges recognized by the federal common law. The first, usually

22

called the adverse spousal testimony privilege, allows a spouse to refuse to testify adversely to his

23

or her spouse. The second, usually called the marital communications privilege, protects from

24

disclosure private communications between spouses. United States v. Griffin, 440 F.3d 1138,

25

1143 (9th Cir. 2006).

26

Plaintiff objects that the deposition of his wife, Teresa Adams, violates martial privilege.

27

This order disagrees. Plaintiff listed his wife as a witness for trial. He cannot now hide behind

28

the adverse spousal testimony privilege to prevent defendants from deposing Mrs. Adams. As for
2

1

the marital communications privilege, plaintiff has not identified any communications that are

2

supposedly confidential and privileged. Nor has he shown that the deposition would concern only

3

matters protected by the privilege. Plaintiff has not shown that Magistrate Judge James’ order

4

allowing defendants to depose Teresa Adams was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

5

2.

SUBPOENA OF THIRD-PARTY RECORDS.

6

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any

7

party’s claim or defense. FRCP 26(b)(1). Defendants served subpoenas on Apple, Inc.,

8

plaintiff’s former employer, to obtain his employment records; and on Philip Takakjian, the Palo

9

Alto Medical Foundation, and Sequoia Hospital to obtain plaintiff’s medical records
(Dkt. No. 112). Plaintiff’s employment and medical records are relevant to his damage claim of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

“great pain, both physical and mental, great monetary loss, deprivation of liberty, loss of ability to

12

work and fully function as a member of his family and community” (Sec. Amd. Compl. ¶ 103).

13

Plaintiff objects that the subpoenas violate his individual privacy and privilege

14

(Dkt. No. 126 at 3). This order disagrees. Plaintiff has waived those privileges as to the records

15

sought. Plaintiff placed his medical history into issue by claiming to have suffered great

16

psychological and physical harm. In fact, plaintiff himself produced documents concerning his

17

medical treatment from these same third parties. Similarly, plaintiff brought his employment

18

history into issue by claiming that his arrest led to his loss of employment and earning capacity

19

(Sec. Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 41, 103). Plaintiff has not shown that Magistrate Judge James’ order

20

forcing third parties to comply with defendants’ subpoenas was clearly erroneous or contrary

21

to law.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion for relief from Magistrate Judge James’ order is

3

DENIED. Defendants may go forward with the deposition of Teresa Adams, and third parties

4

Apple, Inc., Philip Takakjian, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and Sequoia Hospital shall comply

5

with defendants’ subpoenas.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: November 14, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4