Castillo-Antonio v. Iqbal et al
Filing
70
ORDER re 63 Discovery Letter regarding Defendant's deposition can be videotaped; ORDER terminating 69 MOTION For Miscellaneous Relief filed by Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to Attorney Oliveri. Show Cause Response due by 10/21/2016. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 10/14/2016. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO-ANTONIO,
Case No. 14-cv-03316-KAW
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
SARA IQBAL, et al.,
Defendants.
Re: Dkt. No. 63
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR MISCELLANEOUS
RELIEF; JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER;
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
12
13
On September 14, 2016, Plaintiff Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio filed a request for
14
miscellaneous relief, based on Defendant Sadia Ghani Iqbal's refusal to produce certain
15
discovery—such as a current address, highest level of education, and date of birth—and to
16
participate in the joint letter process, as required by the Court's standing order. (Dkt. No. 61.) On
17
September 21, 2016, the Court terminated the request and ordered Defendant Sadia Ghani Iqbal to
18
provide her portion to the joint letter by September 26, 2016. (Dkt. No. 67.) On October 10,
19
2016, Plaintiff filed a second request for miscellaneous relief, which stated that Defendant Sadia
20
Ghani Iqbal had not provided her portion to the joint letter, despite the Court's order. (Dkt. No. 69
21
¶ 7.) Plaintiff also stated that at Defendant Waseem Iqbal's deposition on October 7, 2016,
22
Defendant Waseem Iqbal refused to provide routine background information, including a current
23
address, highest level of education, and date of birth. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff indicated that Defendants'
24
refusal to provide this information is based on Defendants' claim that Plaintiff is a gang member.
25
(Id. ¶ 10.)
26
On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant Waseem Iqbal filed a joint discovery
27
letter regarding whether Defendant Iqbal's deposition can be videotaped per Federal Rule of Civil
28
Procedure 30. (Dkt. No. 63.) Defendant Iqbal objected to the videotaping of his deposition on the
1
grounds that he is an undercover agent for the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and
2
that Plaintiff is or was an active gang member. (Dkt. No. 63 at 2.) On September 21, 2016, the
3
Court issued an order for supplemental briefing, requiring Defendant Iqbal to provide evidence in
4
support of these claims by September 30, 2016. (Dkt. No. 66.) As of October 11, 2016, no
5
supplemental briefing has been filed.
I.
6
REQUEST FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF
Plaintiff states that Defendants Sadia Ghani Iqbal and Waseem Iqbal have refused to
7
8
provide personal information, including a current address, highest level of education, and date of
9
birth, and to participate in the joint letter process. (Dkt. No. 69 ¶¶ 6, 9.) The Court
TERMINATES Plaintiff's request for miscellaneous relief and again ORDERS Defendants to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
provide their portion to the joint letter by October 20, 2016. Failure to comply with this order will
12
be construed as a waiver of objections to the discovery at issue in Plaintiff's requests for
13
miscellaneous relief.
II.
14
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(3) provides: "The party who notices the deposition
15
16
must state in the notice the method for recording the testimony. Unless the court orders otherwise,
17
testimony may be recorded by audio, audio-visual, or stenographic means." Thus, parties are
18
"authorized to record deposition testimony by nonstenographic means without first having to
19
obtain permission of the court or agreement from other counsel." Fed. R. Civ. P. 407 advisory
20
committee's note to 1993 amendment.
The Court finds that Plaintiff may proceed with a videotaped deposition of Defendant
21
22
Iqbal.1 Defendant Iqbal has provided no evidence substantiating his claims that he is an
23
undercover agent or that Plaintiff is a gang member, even after the Court issued an order for
24
supplemental briefing. Absent any evidence in support of these claims, the Court finds that
25
permission of the court was not required to record Defendant Iqbal's deposition testimony.
26
27
1
28
This request may now be moot as Plaintiff indicated the deposition took place on October 7,
2016. (Docket No. 69 ¶ 9.)
2
1
2
III.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 require that the attorney signer certify that, "to the best
3
of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
4
circumstances," that a filing's "factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
5
identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
6
investigation or discovery." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). Here, Defendants' counsel has represented
7
to the Court that Defendant Waseem Iqbal is an undercover DHS agent and accused Plaintiff of
8
being a gang member in a public document. These are serious allegations to make, especially
9
without any apparent evidentiary support. Defendant's counsel also failed to provide any
evidentiary support when given the opportunity to do so. Attorney Oliveri is therefore ordered to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
show cause by October 21, 2016 explaining what evidentiary basis he has for these claims, and
12
why the Court should not impose sanctions, on him individually, sua sponte under Rule 11(c). To
13
the extent there are confidential documents, Defendants' counsel may request permission to file
14
the documents under seal in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5.
15
In addition, Defendants' counsel has allegedly refused to comply with the Court's
16
September 21, 2016 order that Defendant Sadia Ghani Iqbal participate in the discovery process
17
and provide her portion to the joint letter regarding by September 26, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 67, 69.)
18
Attorney Oliveri is therefore also ordered to show cause, by October 21, 2016, why he should not
19
be sanctioned for his failure to comply with the Court's September 21, 2016 order under the
20
Court's inherent authority. See Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc., No. C-01-2079 VRW,
21
2003 WL 21699799, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2003) ("there is no question the court may, again
22
under its inherent authority, sanction failure to comply with court orders. . . and for 'discovery
23
abuses that may not be a technical violation of the discovery rules'") (quoting Halaco Eng'g Co. v.
24
Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 380 (9th Cir. 1988)).
25
26
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff does not require the Court's permission to take a
27
videotaped deposition of Defendant Iqbal. Additionally, defense counsel is ORDERED TO
28
SHOW CAUSE on or before October 21, 2016 why the Court should not impose Rule 11
3
1
sanctions sua sponte for his unsupported claims that his client is an undercover DHS agent and
2
that Plaintiff is or was a gang member, and why the Court should not impose sanctions for his
3
failure to comply with the Court's September 21, 2016 order.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
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
4
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?