Abhijit Prasad v. Santa Clara County Department of Social Services et al

Filing 83

Interim Order re 82 Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Plaintiff's Deposition. Status Report due by 1/14/2019. Signed by Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 12/12/2018. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

ABHIJIT PRASAD,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

INTERIM ORDER RE JOINT
DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER

v.
GAIL SIMMONS, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 82

Defendants.

12
13

Case No.15-cv-04933-BLF (VKD)

The Court has reviewed the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter filed December 11, 2018,

14

in which they ask the Court’s assistance in resolving a dispute concerning the deposition of

15

plaintiff Abhijit Prasad. It appears from the parties’ submission that this dispute is not ready for

16

the Court’s review because the parties have failed to gather the information necessary for a

17

meaningful discussion of their dispute.

18

It appears from a simple ECF query that Mr. Prasad is the sole defendant in a criminal

19

proceeding pending before Judge Breyer in the Northern District of California. See Case No.

20

3:18-cr-00368-CRB. The docket reflects that he is currently represented by the Federal Public

21

Defender, whose name and contact information are provided on the docket. The docket also

22

reflects that Mr. Prasad was first arrested in December 2016 in the Eastern District of California

23

and has been in custody since May 2018.

24

Given the publicly available information about Mr. Prasad’s status and counsel in the

25

criminal proceeding, there is no reason why Mr. Prasad’s counsel in this case should not be able to

26

better inform herself about her client’s circumstances, availability, and intentions with respect to

27

this matter.

28

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1

1. Mr. Prasad’s counsel shall consult with Mr. Prasad’s criminal defense counsel to

2

determine whether Mr. Prasad can be produced for deposition while in pretrial

3

detention, including the specific arrangements that must be made with the jail or other

4

facility in which Mr. Prasad is detained.

5

2. Mr. Prasad’s counsel shall, in consultation with Mr. Prasad’s criminal defense counsel,

6

determine whether there are any other considerations that may impact Mr. Prasad’s

7

ability to submit to a deposition in this case.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

3. Thereafter, Mr. Prasad’s counsel will advise defendants’ counsel of Mr. Prasad’s
availability (or lack thereof) for deposition, and the parties shall confer further about
the dispute raised in the joint discovery dispute letter.
4. The parties shall report back to the Court regarding their compliance with this interim
order and the status of the discovery dispute no later than January 14, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 12, 2018

15
16
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2