Berry v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 36

ORDER THAT XASHA WASHINGTON APPEAR ON OCTOBER 23, 2017 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SHE SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA TO APPEAR FOR A DEPOSITION. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 10/23/2017 at 10:00 A.M. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 10/5/2017. (lsS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GLENN BERRY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Defendants. 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER THAT XASHA WASHINGTON APPEAR ON OCTOBER 23, 2017 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SHE SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA TO APPEAR FOR A DEPOSITION Re: Dkt. No. 35 12 14 Case No.17-cv-00056-EDL On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed an ex parte letter requesting the Court’s assistance in compelling Xasha Washington, a non-party witness, to appear for a deposition, including holding Ms. Washington in contempt of court. For the reasons discuss below, the Court construes Plaintiff’s ex parte request as a request for an order to show cause why Ms. Washington should not be held in contempt of court. For good cause shown, the Court orders Ms. Washington to appear before this Court on October 23, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. to show cause why she should be held in civil contempt for failure to appear at her deposition. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs contend that Ms. Washington is the sole known witness to the incident at issue in this case. Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff served Ms. Washington with a deposition subpoena on August 13, 2017, demanding an appearance at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office in San Francisco at 10:00am on August 28, 2017. Id. Plaintiff had the subpoena personally served on Ms. Washington on August 13, 2017. Id. Plaintiff represents that, at the time of service, Ms. Washington expressed some opposition to testifying, stating, “I do not testify.” Id. Ms. Washington did not appear for her deposition on August 28, 2017. Dkt. No. 33. In 1 response, Plaintiff, joined by Defendants, filed a letter on August 30, 2017 informing the Court of 2 Ms. Washington’s non-compliance. Id. The letter requested that the Court issue an order 3 directing Ms. Washington to comply with the subpoena or hold her in contempt pursuant to Rule 4 45(g). Id. On August 8, 2017, the Court issued an order directing Ms. Washington to appear for a 5 deposition by October 3, 2017 and explaining that her failure to submit to a deposition may lead to 6 the Court holding her in contempt of court. Dkt. No. 34. 7 On September 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed another letter informing the Court that Ms. 8 Washington has continued to disregard her obligation to appear for the deposition. Dkt. No. 35. 9 After receiving the Court’s September 8 order, Plaintiff served the order on Ms. Washington by mail. Id., Ex. 1. Plaintiff also attempted personal service, and the process server made seven 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 unsuccessful attempts to serve the order. Id., Ex. 2. Plaintiff’s letter asks the Court to take further 12 steps to compel Ms. Washington to appear for the deposition, including finding her in contempt of 13 court and imposing a monetary sanction to be waived if she appears by a certain date. Id. Plaintiff 14 also asks that the Court direct the United States Marshal to serve the resulting order on Ms. 15 Washington. Id. Defendants did not join in this most recent letter to the Court. Id. 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 A. 18 A subpoena served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure shall “command each Sufficiency of Subpoena and Service 19 person to whom it is directed to attend and given testimony or to produce and permit inspection 20 and copying of designated books, documents or tangible things in the possession, custody or 21 control of that person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). Every deposition subpoena must state the 22 court from which it issued, state the title of the action and its civil-action number, specify to each 23 person to whom it is directed the time and place set for the deposition, and set out the text of Rule 24 45(d) and (e). Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(B)(i)-(iv). A subpoena commanding a deposition must 25 also set forth the method for recording the testimony. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(B). Serving a 26 subpoena requires “delivering a copy to the named person,” which is interpreted to mean personal 27 service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). See Prescott v. Cnty. Of Stanislaus, 2012 WL 10617, at *3 28 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012) (explaining that a majority of courts interpret “delivering” to require 2 1 2 personal service). As described above, the subpoena contained all required information (such as the time and 3 place of the deposition) and was personally delivered to Ms. Washington on August 13, 2017. 4 Thus, the subpoena was valid and properly served on Ms. Washington. 5 B. 6 Plaintiff has filed an ex parte request that the Court take further action to compel Ms. Sanctions for Non-Compliance with Valid Subpoena 7 Washington’s compliance with the subpoena, including holding Ms. Washington in contempt of 8 court. For the reasons discussed below, the Court construes this as a request to issue an order to 9 show cause why Ms. Washington should not be held in contempt of court for her refusal to appear 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 for a deposition. Rule 45(e), (g) allows a court to “hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails 12 without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). 13 See also Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 494 (9th Cir. 1983). Proper 14 subpoenas issued by attorneys on behalf of the court are treated as orders of the court. See United 15 States Sec. & Exh. Comm’n v. Hyatt, 621 F.3d 687, 696-97 (7th Cir. 2010); Martinez v. City of 16 Pittsburg, 2012 WL 699462, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2012). Because Ms. Washington is a 17 nonparty, the proper procedure for seeking compliance with the deposition subpoena is an order to 18 show cause why she should not be held in contempt because a “nonparty has a right to be heard in 19 a meaningful fashion.” Martinez, 2012 WL 699462, at *2. See Hyatt, 621 F.3d at 696-97; Fisher 20 v. Marubeni Cotton Corp., 526 F.2d 1338, 1342 (8th Cir. 1975); Morgutia-Johnson v. City of 21 Fresno, 2015 WL 1021123, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015). 22 A contempt charge against a nonparty may be criminal or civil in nature. See Falstaff 23 Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 1983). Criminal contempt is 24 punitive, and may include fines payable to the district court (instead of compensating the moving 25 party) and jail time. See In re Sequoia Auto Brokers LTD, Inc., 827 F.2d 1281, 1283 n.1 (9th Cir. 26 1987); 18 U.S.C. § 401. 27 28 On the other hand, “civil contempt is characterized by the court’s desire to compel obedience to a court order or to compensate the contemnor’s adversary for the injuries which 3 1 result from the noncompliance.” Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 2 778 (9th Cir. 1983). A civil contempt order must include a “purge” condition such that it gives the 3 contemnor an opportunity to comply with the order before payment of the fine or other sanction 4 comes due. Martinez, 2012 WL 699462, at *3 (citing De Parcq v. U.S. District Court for the S. 5 Dist. of Iowa, 235 F.2d 692, 699 (9th Cir. 1956) (“[C]ivil contempt is conditional in nature and 6 can be terminated if the contemnor purges himself of the contempt.”). In imposing civil contempt 7 sanctions, the court must impose the least possible sanction to coerce the contemnor to comply 8 with the order. Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 1992). Where the 9 purpose of the contempt order is to ensure a party’s compliance, the court must “consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing the result desired.” Bademyan v. Receivable 12 Management Servs. Corp., 2009 WL 605789, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2009) (quoting United 13 States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 304 (1947) and citing Whittaker, 953 F.2d 14 at 516). 15 Based on the sanctions requested, Plaintiff has asked the Court to hold Ms. Washington in 16 civil contempt. To establish civil contempt, Plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence 17 that Ms. Washington violated a specific order of the court. See FTC v. Affordable Media, 179 18 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). If Plaintiff meets that burden, the burden shifts to Ms. 19 Washington to show that she took every reasonable step to comply with the subpoena and to 20 articulate reasons why compliance was not possible. See Donovan v. Mazzola, 716 F.2d 1226, 21 1240 (9th Cir. 1983). As discussed above, Plaintiff has established that Ms. Washington violated a specific order 22 23 of the Court by failing to appear for her deposition on August 28, 2017, as well as the Court’s 24 further order of September 8, 2017 that she must comply with the subpoena. Accordingly, 25 Plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause is granted. 26 III. 27 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ordered that: 28 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 1. Plaintif request for an order to show caus is GRAN ff’s f t se NTED. 2. Ms. Wa ashington sh appear before the Co on Octob 23, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., in hall ourt ber 7, Courtro oom E, 15th Floor, Unite States Dis ed strict Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenu San n ue, Francis Californ 94102 to SHOW CA sco, nia, AUSE why sh should no be held in contempt he ot for her failure to co omply with th subpoena and appear for her depo he a r osition; ngton arrang with Plain ge ntiff’s counse (David Fio of Brent, Fiol & Pratt el ol 3. Should Ms. Washin LLP, 10 4th Street, Suite 750 San Rafae California 94901, 415 000 0, el, a 5-259-4420) to appear for a de eposition prior to Octobe 23, 2017, the parties s er shall notify th Court imm he mediately, and the October 23, 2017 show cause heari will be v w ing vacated and M Washing Ms. gton will not t need to appear; 4. Plaintif shall file a brief letter update by O ff u October 20, 2 2017 indicati whether Ms. ing Washin ngton has sub bmitted to a deposition a of that dat as te; 5. Failure to comply with this order to show c w cause may su ubject Ms. W Washington t contempt to sanction including monetary sanctions; an ns, g s nd 6. The Un nited States Marshal is di M irected to ser this orde on Ms. W er Washington at 1806 t rve Franklin St., Apt. B, Berkeley, California 9 B 94702 as soo as possible. on 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDER S RED. Da ated: October 5, 2017 r 18 19 EL LIZABETH D. LAPORT TE Un nited States M Magistrate J Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?