Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01017/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01017-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv1017 OWW DLB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS PREMATURE

(Document 50)

Defendants filed the instant motion for protective order or alternatively, for modification

of scheduling order, on May 22, 2006. Based on a stipulation and order shortening time, the

motion was heard on May 26, 2006, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States

Magistrate Judge. Geoffrey Graber and Anne Hunter appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. James

Weakley and James Arendt appeared on behalf of Defendants City of Fresno (“City”) and Fresno

Police Officer Marcus Tafoya (“Officer Tafoya”).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed their civil rights complaint on August 5, 2005, against the City and Officer

Tafoya (collectively “Defendants”). Officer Tafoya is sued individually and in his official

capacity. Plaintiffs’ allegations arise out of their arrests on March 5, 2005. They allege causes of

action for: (1) violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments based on their false arrests

and the unreasonable use of force, including allegations that the City has a policy, pattern,

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 60 Filed 05/30/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

practice and custom of arresting individuals by using improper means (excessive force), of

detaining individuals without probable cause, and of condoning or encouraging the

unconstitutional conduct of the officers; (2) assault and battery; (3) false arrest and

imprisonment; and (4) negligence.

Defendants seek a protective order preventing Plaintiffs from conducting discovery into 

areas that are subject to the official information privilege, and areas which have already been

determined not to be subject to discovery. Defendants also seek a protective order preventing

Plaintiff from conducting unnecessary and cummulative discovery that is oppressive and places

an undue burden on Defendants. In the alternative, Defendants seek an amendment to the

operative Scheduling Order to allow for sufficient time to respond to all of the outstanding

discovery.

Plaintiffs represent that this motion began as an effort by the City to object to two

deposition notices served by plaintiffs on May 16, 2006, comprising a series of limited

depositions of a handful of percipient depositions and one 30(b)(6) deposition, that were

scheduled to occur on May 30, May 31 and June 2. At the City’s request, Plaintiffs agreed to

shorten time on briefing relating to these depositions only. Plaintiffs contend the City’s opening

motion, however, expanded the scope of the issues well beyond the limited issues of the May 16

deposition notices.

At the hearing, the Court inquired into the actual relief requested in the present motion

and counsel framed the issues as follows:

1. The ability of Plaintiffs counsel to inquire at the upcoming depositions into the

recommendations and conclusions of various officers in the Internal Affairs

investigations related to the incident at issue in this case;

2. The discoverability of information relating to open and pending Internal Affairs

investigations regarding other incidents, both prior and subsequent to the subject

incident;

3. Defendants’ obligation to respond to outstanding discovery which is due after the

discovery cutoff; and

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 60 Filed 05/30/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

4. Plaintiffs apparent unwillingness to accommodate counsel in scheduling the

numerous upcoming depositions.

After lengthy discussion at the hearing, it is apparent that the present motion is premature. 

Due to the haste in filing this motion, the parties apparently did not meet and confer on the issues

nor did they have adequate time to fully brief the issues. The issues which Defendants place

before the Court are based on anticipated questions at the upcoming depositions and appear to

cover areas in which this court has already issued orders. While the Court is happy to provide

assistance to the parties to avoid discovery disputes, the Court cannot rule on objections to

deposition questions which have not yet been posed. The Court therefore declines to grant

Defendants’ motion for Protective Order as it is premature. However, with regard to the above

issues, the Court reminds the parties, as discussed at the hearing, that it has already ruled, on two

occasions that conclusions and recommendations of the IA investigation concerning the events at

issue here, which exist only in the unlikely event the investigation is completed, are not relevant 

because the jury must decide this case based on its analysis of witness credibility and the facts

presented rather than another’s opinion of the events in question. Further, the parties are

reminded that if they are unable to agree on dates for depositions, the alternative is a Court

ordered deposition schedule. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for protective order or modification of

scheduling order is DENIED as premature. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 30, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01017-OWW -DLB Document 60 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3