Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 317

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO SEEK THIRD-PARTY DISCOVERY by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part 307 ; granting 316 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12

14
15
16
17
18

21

(Re: Docket No. 307, 316)

Before the court are two ex parte motions by Plaintiff Adil Hiramanek for leave to conduct
third-party discovery.1 Earlier in this case, “[i]n light of Plaintiffs’ history of broadly and
indiscriminately serving subpoenas on non-parties without any substantial basis,” the court
ordered Plaintiffs to seek leave of the court and show good cause before serving any further thirdparty discovery.2 Because the court finds that Hiramanek has shown good cause for some, but not
all, of the third-party discovery he seeks, the court GRANTS-IN-PART Hiramanek’s motions as
set forth below.

19
20

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTIONS
FOR LEAVE TO SEEK THIRD-PARTY
DISCOVERY

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

11

13

Case No. 13-cv-00228-RMW

First, Hiramanek seeks leave to conduct discovery related to Claims 10, 17 and 44 of
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.3 Each of these claims alleges violations of Hiramanek’s
civil rights by various court security officers at the Santa Clara County Superior Courthouse, and

22
23
24

1

See Docket Nos. 307, 316.

25

2

Docket No. 251 at 4.

26

3

See Docket No. 307 at 1; see also Docket No. 201 at 2-3.

27
28

1
Case No.13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO SEEK
THIRD-PARTY DISCOVERY

1

Judge Whyte has ordered that Hiramanek may seek discovery in connection to these claims.4

2

Through this discovery, Hiramanek has learned that third party Ed Yearman, a sheriff’s deputy,

3

recommended that the sheriff’s office take certain precautions when Hiramanek went to county

4

buildings. Hiramanek therefore seeks depositions and document production from Yearman and

5

the Santa Clara County Sheriff.
Hiramanek may serve his proposed deposition subpoena on Yearman in his individual

6
7

capacity.5 The court notes that, in taking this individual third-party deposition, Hiramanek need

8

not—and may not—specify particular topics on which Yearman is to testify.
Hiramanek’s other subpoenas, however, are deficient. Hiramanek seeks to depose a

10

representative of the Santa Clara County Sheriff under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) about “[a]ll matters

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

related to Claims # 10, #17, #35, #44, of Docket #201 to this case.”6 But Claim 35—against

12

Defendant Beth Miller in her individual capacity for allegedly discriminating against Plaintiffs by

13

denying them access to the restroom7—has nothing to do with the Sheriff. More importantly, Rule

14

30(b)(6) commands that the subpoena must “describe with reasonable particularity the matters for

15

examination.” This subpoena is far too broad to satisfy this requirement.
Similarly, Hiramanek’s requests for documents seek “[a]ll [documents] . . . associated with

16
17

Claims # 10, #17, #35, #44 of Docket #201 of this case” from each of Yearman and the Sheriff.8

18

A request for documents must “describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of

19

items” to be produced.9 As above, Hiramanek’s requests fail to do so.

20
21

4

See Docket No. 201 at 2-3.

22

5

See Docket No. 307-1 at Ex. D.

23

6

Id. at Ex. E.

24

7

See Docket No. 201 at 3.

25

8

See Docket No. 307-1 at Exs. H, I.

26

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A).

27
28

2
Case No.13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO SEEK
THIRD-PARTY DISCOVERY

Second, Hiramanek seeks leave to conduct discovery related to Claim II-A of Plaintiffs’

1
2

Second Amended Complaint, which alleges that Defendant Superior Court of California

3

improperly denied Plaintiffs’ requests for disability accommodations.10 SCCA admits that it

4

denied certain of Plaintiffs’ requests for telephone appearances through third-party vendor

5

CourtCall and for e-filing through third-party vendor Glotrans.11
However, SCCA raises several affirmative defenses that Hiramanek argues he cannot

6
7

explore effectively without discovery from these third parties. For instance, SCCA claims that

8

“the relief sought by Plaintiffs would constitute or result in an undue financial or administrative

9

burden.”12 SCCA also raises affirmative defenses that Plaintiffs’ requests for telephonic
appearance might “fundamentally alter the manner in which court proceedings operate” and that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

“the relief sought by Plaintiffs is technically infeasible.”13 Finally, SCCA claims that Plaintiffs’

12

complaint “is barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs’ injury or injuries, if any, were caused

13

by third parties acting outside the scope of agency, employment or control of Defendant.”14
In light of these affirmative defenses, Hiramanek asks for permission to depose

14
15

representatives of CourtCall and Glotrans.15 He also moves for leave to request documents

16

regarding whether these vendors’ services “would cause an undue burden, or fundamental

17

alteration of the nature of program or services at Santa Clara County California Superior Court,

18

and whether such [services are] technically infeasible.”16

19
10

See Docket No. 316; see also Docket No. 201 at 2.

21

11

See Docket No. 178 at ¶ 23.

22

12

Id. at 6-7.

23

13

Id. at 7-8.

24

14

Id. at 9.

25

15

See Docket No. 316 at Exs. C, D.

26

16

Id.

20

27
28

3
Case No.13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO SEEK
THIRD-PARTY DISCOVERY

Hiramanek may serve his proposed subpoenas to CourtCall and Glotrans. These

1
2

subpoenas “describe with reasonable particularity” the discovery he seeks,17 and that discovery is

3

tied to a viable claim.

4

SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: October 14, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
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

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A).

4
Case No.13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO SEEK
THIRD-PARTY DISCOVERY