Ortiz v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 60

Order by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 59 Motion for Protective Order.(jsclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DAVID ORTIZ,

Case No. 14-cv-00322-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

9
10

STEVE FREITAS, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 59

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff David Ortiz makes claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 arising from his

14

detention at the Sonoma County Jail facility. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion

15

for a Protective Order (Dkt. No. 59) which seeks to enjoin Plaintiff’s deposition from taking place

16

tomorrow, October 2, 2014, at the Sonoma County Jail facility in which he is presently detained.

17

In light of the exigency involved and based on the potential for embarrassment or oppression

18

should the deposition go forward at the jail facility rather than the location previously agreed upon

19

by the parties, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for protective order pursuant to Federal Rule

20

of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1).

21
22

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) provides that “[a] party or any person from whom

23

discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending—or

24

as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the

25

deposition will be taken.” The Court may grant a protective order “to protect a party or person

26

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Id.

27
28

Here, the parties originally agreed that Plaintiff’s deposition would take place on October
2, 2014 at APEX Suites, Courthouse Square, 1000 Fourth Street, Suite 800, San Rafael, California

1

94901. After the deposition was noticed, however, Plaintiff was arrested and detained at the Main

2

Detention Facility for the Sonoma County Jail. On September 26 and 30, 2014, Defendants

3

informed Plaintiff that they intend to proceed with the deposition on October 2, but that it would

4

occur at the jail rather than the location previously agreed upon given Plaintiff’s custody status.
Plaintiff moves for a protective order seeking to reschedule the deposition until such time

5
6

as Plaintiff is not in Defendants’ custody. 1 Plaintiff contends that because the jail facility is under

7

the supervision of the named defendants it would be an intimidating and hostile setting for the

8

deposition to occur, and further, that the location of the deposition would be the very location

9

where the incidents underlying this action arose and he would be expected to “testify against the
people presently holding him in custody under the same circumstances which give rise to the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

PTSD he suffers from and form the basis of his complaint.” (Dkt. No. 59 at 3:8-12.)

12

“A district court has wide discretion to establish the time and place of depositions.” Hyde

13

& Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994). In light of the upcoming case management

14

conference on October 30, 2014, at which the location of Plaintiff’s deposition can be more fully

15

discussed, and Plaintiff’s unexpected custody, the Court grants a protective order prohibiting the

16

deposition from going forward on October 2, 2014. The Court also vacates the fact discovery

17

deadline.
The parties shall be prepared to discuss this matter further at the Case Management

18
19

Conference on October 30, 2014 and the Joint Case Management Conference Statement due

20

October 23 shall provide an update regarding Plaintiff’s custody status and, if possible, include a

21

revised proposed case management schedule.

22

This Order disposes of Docket No. 59. No response by Defendants need be filed.

23

//

24

//

25
26
27
28

1

Although Plaintiff has not certified that he attempted to meet and confer with Defendants prior to
bringing his motion as required by Rule 26(c)(1), given that Defendants informed Plaintiff
yesterday, September 30, of their intent to proceed with the deposition at the jail, and the
deposition is scheduled for tomorrow, October 2, the Court will nonetheless consider the motion.
2

1
2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 1, 2014
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3