McCullough et al v. Contra Costa County et al

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore granting in part and denying in part 14 Motion to Stay. Case stayed as to Deputy Hume only. Limited discovery to proceed in accordance with this order. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2014)

1
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3
4
5
6

MARIA MCCULLOUGH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9
10

v.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,

Case No.: CV 13-05425-TEH (KAW)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY
(Dkt. No. 14.)

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On March 28, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to stay the action in light of Defendant

13

Deputy Dillon Hume’s status as an active servicemember, pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil

14

Relief Act, 50 App. U.S.C. § 522. (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. No. 14 at 2.) Deputy Hume will be

15

unavailable until February 2015. (Dkt. No. 25.) Deputy Hume’s codefendants also request a stay

16

to avoid duplicative discovery and motions, and because they “cannot mount an effective defense

17

without the testimony of Deputy Hume.” (Defs.’ Mot. at 2.) Plaintiffs did not file an opposition

18

to the motion to stay.

19

On April 14, 2014, the parties appeared before the district court for a case management

20

conference, and informed the court that Deputy Hume was not central to the incident. (Dkt. No.

21

25.) On April 16, 2014, the district court referred the motion to stay, as well as all subsequent

22

discovery disputes, to the undersigned to determine whether any parts of this case could proceed

23

without causing undue prejudice to any party if it were stayed only as to Deputy Hume. Id.

24

On April 21, 2014, the undersigned ordered the parties to file a joint letter that addressed

25

several of the court’s concerns. (Dkt. No. 28.) On May 14, 2014, the parties filed the joint letter.

26

(Dkt. No. 34.) The Court finds that the motion may be decided without oral argument or further

27

briefing pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS IN PART AN DENIES IN PART

28

Defendants' motion to stay.

1

The Court stays the action as it pertains to Deputy Hume only. Per the agreement of the

2

parties, the depositions of Deputies Jacinto, Ingersoll, and Van Scoy shall not go forward until

3

Deputy Hume’s return. In addition, limited written discovery regarding the incident may proceed

4

in Deputy Hume’s absence, but shall be limited to non-testimonial evidence, since his

5

participation is unnecessary and Deputy Hume will not suffer any prejudice if Plaintiffs are

6

provided with documents relating to the incident that are already in the County’s possession. The

7

Court was not persuaded by the County’s argument that Deputy Hume’s participation was

8

required for document production. Should Deputy Hume have access to additional responsive

9

documents of which the County is not aware, the County shall supplement its document

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

production upon his return.
If the parties further agree, written discovery and depositions relating to Plaintiff’s alleged

12

damages may proceed at this time so long as they do not require the participation of Deputies

13

Hume, Jacinto, Ingersoll, and Van Scoy.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 28, 2014

___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

2