Sandoval et al v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 175

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on August 13, 2014. (nclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 RAFAEL MATEOS-SANDOVAL, and others, 13 14 15 16 Plaintiffs, Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC) ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES Re: Dkt. Nos. 170, 171 v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, and others, Defendants. 17 18 19 Today, the Court heard oral argument on the parties’ discovery disputes presented in 20 joint letter briefs at docket entries 170 and 171. Weighing the potential relevance of the 21 requested discovery against the burden of production, the Court rules as follows: 22 1. With the plaintiffs’ consent, the subpoenas to third-party towing companies are 23 further stayed pending a future Court order. 24 2. Plaintiffs’ request for a 30(b)(6) deposition on Sonoma County and its “record 25 keeping practices” is denied without prejudice because: (1) there is a stay of this case 26 against Sonoma County: (2) plaintiffs recently completed the deposition of Sheriff Freitas 27 and have completed other written discovery that should sufficiently illuminate their class 28 certification motion; and (3) the Court finds that the burden of this discovery outweighs its Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC) ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES 1 benefit at this point in the case. Plaintiffs may request this discovery if it becomes 2 necessary to support their motion for class certification. 3 3. The request for additional statistical data from Sheriff Freitas to establish 4 numerosity is denied without prejudice. Dkt. No. 171. Counsel for plaintiffs stated at the 5 hearing that the information he has received covering the year 2011 is sufficient to support a 6 numerosity argument for class certification. The Court declines to decide the time frame 7 covered by the class definition in the proposed third amended complaint, or whether Sheriff 8 Freitas ratified policies that existed before he became Sheriff. 9 Any party may object to this nondispositive order to District Court Judge Thelton E. 10 Henderson within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Date: August 13, 2014 13 _________________________ Nathanael M. Cousins United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-05817 TEH (NC) ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES 2

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?