Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01406/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01406-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 08cv1406

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUATAY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, Civil No. 08cv1406-JM (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF

CHERIE CHAM

[Doc. No. 56]

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendant.

Before the Court is plaintiff Guatay Christian Fellowship’s (“Guatay”) Motion to Compel the

Deposition of Cherie Cham. [Doc. No. 56.] Defendant County of San Diego (“County”) filed an

opposition. [Doc. No. 61.] The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers

submitted and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

On May 28, 2009, Guatay served a notice on the County for the deposition of County Code

Enforcement Officer Cherie Cham for June 9, 2009. The notice includes a demand for the production of

documents. The County objected and refused to produce Officer Cham contending she has no personal

knowledge relevant to the claims and defenses of this litigation.

As an initial matter, the notice for Officer Cham’s deposition is improper. Although the 12 days

notice given for the deposition of Officer Cham may be reasonable notice for a deposition under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(1), when the notice joins a request for the production of documents, as this notice

does, the procedures for Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 apply and a minimum of 30 days’ notice is required. The

plaintiff cannot avoid the requirements of Rule 34 by incorporating the document request into a

Case 3:08-cv-01406-JM-BLM Document 67 Filed 07/10/09 Page 1 of 2
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 08cv1406

deposition notice. Further, the Scheduling Order in this case [Doc. No. 41] set the close of discovery for

June 15, 2009, so the last day to timely serve a document request was May 15, 2009. Guatay could not

serve this document request without leave of Court, which it did not seek prior to incorporating it in the

deposition notice. The notice is defective on its face and therefore the deposition as noticed cannot be

compelled. 

Further, the County objects to the deposition of Officer Cham on the basis that she has no

knowledge relevant to this litigation. It is undisputed that Officer Cham had no participation in the

issuance of the Notice of Violation against plaintiff that is at-issue in this case. Guatay has not

represented that she was involved in that process in any manner. Guatay seeks her deposition because

she was recently involved in the issuance of an Administrative Citation Warning against an unrelated

home bible study group. The warning was rescinded by the County with an apology that included the

statement that the “Code Enforcement Officer [Cham] incorrectly made the finding in no small measure

on unclear language in the zoning ordinance.” [Doc. No. 56 at 5.]

Guatay argues it is entitled to discovery into Officer Cham’s understanding of the ordinance and

training she received regarding the interpretation and application of the ordinance and the issuance of

cease and desist orders to religious assemblies because the circumstances involving the citation to this

third party demonstrate that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. [Id.] The County

argues that since Officer Cham had nothing to do with the Notice of Violation issued to plaintiff, her

understanding and training is irrelevant to the claims and defenses of this case. She has no personal

knowledge of the circumstances regarding plaintiff’s complaint. Further, there is no argument raised in

plaintiff’s complaint that the County’s ordinance requiring a Major Use permit for religious assemblies

is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous or that the plaintiff was not a religious assembly as defined

by the Ordinance. The County’s objection is sustained. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Cheri Cham is DENIED.

DATED: July 10, 2009

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01406-JM-BLM Document 67 Filed 07/10/09 Page 2 of 2