Wheat v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 55

ORDER re 54 Letter filed by Michael Schwartz, Derek Wheat, County of Alameda, Raymond Lara, Gregory Ahern, Susan Muranishi, Nichole Bonsteel, Casey Nice, Allan Lamb, Donald Buchanan, David Sanches. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/26/2012. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

Northern District of California

7
8

DEREK WHEAT,

9

No. C 11-4509 MEJ
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ON PARTIES’ JOINT
DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER

10
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

[RE: DOCKET NO. 54]

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
On October 25, 2012, the parties filed a joint discovery dispute letter in which they requested

14 a ruling from the Court before the scheduled deposition of Plaintiff on November 1. Dkt. No. 54.
15 The dispute concerns whether Plaintiff — who is not an attorney and is representing himself in this
16 action — should be allowed to employ a contract attorney to assist him in defending his upcoming
17 deposition and in conducting the future depositions of Defendants. Defendants argue that this is not
18 permitted because it amounts to hybrid representation, which is prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Dkt.
19 No. 54 at 1. But the cases cited by Defendants do not stand for the proposition that a pro se plaintiff
20 cannot retain a contract attorney to assist him with the defense of a deposition while still retaining the
21 right to represent himself throughout the course of litigation. Rather, the cited cases stand for the
22 more narrow proposition that courts should not permit pro se plaintiffs to retain counsel for all
23 purposes and yet continue to represent themselves at times. See, e.g., Lanigan v. LaSalle Nat. Bank,
24 609 F.Supp. 1000, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (“the rights of self-representation and representation by
25 counsel may not be both exercised at the same time”)).
26

Courts in this District routinely appoint pro bono attorneys to assist pro se plaintiffs for

27 limited purposes such as settlement conferences, motions, and depositions. See Northern District of
28 California, General Order No. 25 (providing that in matters where parties are not represented by an

1 attorney, the “Court may appoint [pro bono] counsel for all purposes or for limited purposes such as
2 representation on a dispositive motion, conduct of a deposition, representation in ADR processes,
3 etc.”) (emphasis added). In a similar manner, the Court finds nothing troubling — on this record and
4 at these stage of the proceedings — about Plaintiff’s decision to hire an attorney to assist him in the
5 upcoming depositions. If, however, Plaintiff abuses this process, Defendants are free to raise this
6 issue again.1 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ request to prohibit Plaintiff from utilizing
7 contract attorneys at the upcoming depositions is DENIED.
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10 Dated: October 26, 2012
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

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

1

The Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff will benefit “from
appearing pro se before a jury, and it is unfair and inconsistent to allow the Plaintiff to reap that
benefit while having had the benefit of counsel during the litigation.” Dkt. No. 54 at 1. This
concern is easily mitigated since Defendants remain free to point out to a jury that Plaintiff was
represented by counsel during the depositions.
2