Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al

Filing 470

ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE (Dkt. No. 468). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 7/19/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 13 VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, et al., 14 Plaintiffs, 15 16 17 18 Case No.: 09-cv-0037 CW (JSC) ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE (Dkt. No. 468) v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Now pending before the Court is a Joint Statement regarding Discovery Dispute (Dkt. No. 468). Plaintiffs seek an order from the Court requiring Defendants to produce Joe Salvatore, David Abott and Dr. Kelley Brix for a deposition by a date certain. The Court finds that the Motion is suitable for determination without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b). Having considered the papers submitted to the Court, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request in part. In March of 2012, Plaintiffs brought a Motion to Compel seeking to take the depositions of Dee Dodson Morris, Joe Salvatore, Dr. Kelley Brix, and David Abbot. (Dkt. No. 404). The Court found that there was good cause to resume the deposition of Mr. 1 Salvatore for a total of 3.5 hours, take the deposition of Dr. Brix for a total of 4 hours and 2 resume Mr. Abbott’s deposition for a total of 3.5 hours. (Dkt. Nos. 408, 456). The Court’s 3 decision was based on the fact that documents which the Court ordered produced to Plaintiffs 4 following the Court’s deliberative process review contained evidence relating to these 5 individuals which Plaintiffs did not have access to at the time of these individuals’ prior 6 depositions, in the case of Mr. Salvatore and Mr. Abbot, and prior to the close of fact 7 discovery, in the case of Dr. Brix. 8 The parties’ Joint Statement raises the issue of scheduling these depositions while Plaintiffs’ two pending motions to compel regarding further deliberative process documents 10 remain outstanding. The Court has issued an Order today resolving Plaintiffs’ June 14, 2012 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Motion to Compel and Plaintiffs’ July 13, 2012 Motion to Compel will be submitted on July 12 30, 2012 and the Court will issue an order shortly thereafter. The Court understands these 13 two motions to represent the last remaining disputes regarding Defendants’ privilege logs 14 and any documents over which Defendants claim the deliberative process privilege. 15 Thus, in accordance with the Court’s prior Orders requiring Defendants to produce 16 these individuals for deposition, the Court orders Defendants to work with Plaintiffs to set a 17 date for these depositions as expeditiously as possible. The Court notes, however, that it will 18 not be inclined to order further depositions of these individuals should Plaintiffs choose to 19 take their depositions prior to receipt of any documents ordered produced in the Order filed 20 today or the forthcoming order resolving the remaining motion to compel as Plaintiffs have 21 not identified any basis for urgency with respect to these depositions. The Court further 22 notes that the scope of these depositions includes any documents produced pursuant to the 23 Court’s deliberative process privilege Orders. 24 This Order disposes of Docket No. 468. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: July 19, 2012 27 _________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 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?