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)

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