Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07767/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07767-6/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

* E-filed 4/10/08 *

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DWIGHT WATSON; DANIEL FARIAS;

LAUREN WATSON; and NICOLE WATSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GLENN ALBIN; DAVID MENDEZ; FRANK

ST. CLAIR; MIKE D'ANTONIO; MIKE

RUBINO; SANTA CLARA COUNTY; STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 1-50,

Defendants. /

No. C-06-07767 RMW

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO

COMPEL

Re: Docket No. 76

The allegations in plaintiffs' complaint stem from a probation search conducted by the

Santa Clara County Specialized Enforcement Team. Plaintiffs now move to compel the

deposition of Officer Mecir, commanding officer in charge of the probation search. They also

move to compel documents from Mecir. This matter is deemed appropriate for determination

without oral argument. See Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the April 15, 2008 hearing is

VACATED and the motion will now be decided on the papers submitted. 

Case 5:06-cv-07767-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/10/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The court granted the State of California's motion to dismiss. See Docket No.

32, C-06-07767-RMW (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2007). Plaintiffs have since stipulated to dismiss

Santa Clara County and Frank St. Clair. See Docket Nos. 97, 98 (March 26, 2008).

2

I. MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

Procedural Background

Since this case was filed, several defendants have been dismissed - either by court action

or by stipulation of the parties.1

 Thus, the only remaining defendants are agents Glenn Albin,

David Mendez, Mike D'Antonio, and Mike Rubino. Prior to being dismissed from this case, the

State of California served initial disclosures indicating that Mecir was an individual likely to

have discoverable information. The disclosure did not provide Mecir's contact information, but

stated that he could be contacted through the Attorney General's (AG) Office. Because of its

representation of defendant Mike Rubino, the AG's Office remained counsel in this action even

after the State was dismissed. 

Factual Background of Dispute

The discovery cutoff is February 29, 2008. One month before the cutoff, plaintiffs

served the AG's Office with a notice for the deposition of Mecir (who has never been a party to

this action) and Rubino. The notice set the depositions for February 26. On February 25,

counsel at the AG told plaintiffs that Mecir would not be attending the deposition because he

had not been subpoenaed. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs sought contact information for Mecir

from the AG. On February 26, Mecir was served with a subpoena commanding his appearance

at a deposition on March 7 (ten days after service of the subpoena and one week after the close

of discovery). Thereafter, the AG's Office again notified plaintiffs that Mecir would not be

appearing at March 7 deposition. 

Defendants argue that the ten-day notice period was not reasonable and that plaintiffs

could not unilaterally set a deposition outside of the discovery period. Plaintiffs counter that ten

days is typically presumed reasonable notice. See In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation, 231

F.R.D. 320, 327 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Further, they say that Mecir had notice of plaintiffs' intent to

take this deposition as early as January 29 and that the only reason for the delay was due to

Case 5:06-cv-07767-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

defense counsel's last-minute objection to the form of the deposition notice. Plaintiffs explain

that the deposition was noticed outside of the discovery period as a result of the late objection

and the need to provide sufficient notice. 

Discussion

Even though a subpoena was technically required to depose non-party witness Mecir,

plaintiffs' mistake in not doing so was understandable given the AG's Office initial disclosure

indicating that Mecir could be contacted through them. Furthermore, compelling this deposition

does not prejudice defendants since they have effectively been on notice of plaintiffs' intent to

take it since the end of January. Of particular note are plaintiffs' efforts to remedy the "error"

quickly and reasonably after defendants told plaintiffs they were requiring a subpoena. 

Thus, the motion to compel the deposition of Officer Mecir is GRANTED. To find

otherwise would elevate form over substance, something this court is not inclined to do. 

Discovery shall be reopened for the limited purpose of conducting the deposition, which shall

be held as soon as a mutually agreeable time can be arranged. 

II. MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS

The parties inform the court that this aspect of the motion has been resolved. 

Accordingly, it is DENIED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/10/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-07767-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/10/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Jennifer C. Addams jennifer.addams@doj.ca.gov, chere.deuel@doj.ca.gov 

Mark F. Bernal mark.bernal@cco.sccgov.org 

Michael J. Dodson cao.main@sanjoseca.gov 

Wilfred T. Fong wil.fong@doj.ca.gov 

James Thomas Gotch gotchj@stubbsleone.com 

Sunil R. Kulkarni skulkarni@mofo.com, msousa@mofo.com 

Claudia Leed leedc@stubbsleone.com, suttonk@stubbsleone.com 

Louis A. Leone lleone@stubbsleone.com, suttonk@stubbsleone.com 

Mark William Martel markmartel@aol.com 

Timothy James Schmal , Esq TSchmal@bvsllp.com, jpl@bvsllp.com 

KC Waldron kcwaldron@mofo.com, klarson@mofo.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 4/10/08 

 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:06-cv-07767-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/10/08 Page 4 of 4