Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05169/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05169-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUE ROSANNE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, DAVID

LARSON, and DOES 1–20,

 /

No. C 06-05169 WHA

ORDER BARRING DEFENDANT

DAVID LARSON FROM

TESTIFYING AT TRIAL

In this Section 1983 action, defendant David Larson, a former police officer, repeatedly

refused to appear for his deposition throughout the discovery period. After the close of business

on the last day of the discovery period, his lawyer sent an email to counsel that he had changed

his mind and now would testify. The question is whether to re-open discovery and allow

defendant Larson to reverse field. After reviewing counsel’s letter briefs and considering the

oral argument of both sides, the Court rules as follows. 

Defendant Larson refused to appear for his deposition on four occasions, citing a

refusal to testify under the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff’s counsel then agreed with the defense

to give up on taking the deposition so long as Larson would not testify at trial or by declaration. 

Both counsel agreed. Defendant Larson’s attorney then stipulated in writing that Mr. Larson

would not testify “based on the Fifth Amendment” and “shall decline to testify as to any matter

whatsoever in this litigation, including but not limited to, at deposition . . . at trial . . . or other

proceedings.” He further stated that he would not waive his Fifth Amendment right under any

Case 3:06-cv-05169-WHA Document 37 Filed 08/15/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

circumstances. Based on this, he still refused to appear for any deposition. As stated, the

representation was signed by Larson’s counsel (and was prepared by and on the pleading of

plaintiff’s counsel). Although the original was signed, an unsigned copy was submitted to the

Court for its blessings. The Court responded on May 9 as follows: 

The stipulation and proposed order regarding defendant

David Larson’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment

privilege against self-incrimination was not signed by the

attorney for either side. Assuming that it is a genuine

stipulation, there is no necessity for the Court to execute

the stipulation. Whether or not Larson has a good-faith

basis for declining to answer under the Fifth Amendment is

unclear on the present record. Moreover, circumstances

could change in the future, such as the grant of immunity. 

Therefore it would be imprudent for the Court to sign on to

the blanket stipulation submitted. Finally, all parties

should be aware of the consequences of invoking the Fifth

Amendment in a civil action, including the instructions that

may be given to the jury concerning defendant’s refusal to

testify. 

In short, the Court refused to bless the blanket invocation of the Fifth Amendment. 

Nonetheless, defendant Larson went ahead and completely refused to testify during the entire

fact-discovery period in this case. In reliance thereon, counsel have prepared their cases. 

To allow defendant Larson to reverse field now would be manifestly unfair. We would have to

start all over. All discovery would have to be re-done. (A dozen or so depositions have been

taken.) Expert reports (on liability) would have to be re-done. The pending summary judgment

motion would have to be re-done. Plaintiff has stage-three cancer and moving the trial date

would be unfair. This burden and tactic should not be permitted. Nor should a party be allowed

to manipulate the case-management schedule in this way so as to get the opportunity to testify

last after all other evidence is known. It is further worth noting that at no time has defense

counsel justified the sudden change in strategy. Defense counsel claims the changed

circumstances are that a motion for summary judgment has been made and defendant Larson

now needs to defend himself. That, however, was an entirely foreseeable consequence of the

very strategy adopted by the defense. 

Having considered various alternatives, including re-opening discovery and requiring

defendant Larson to pay the expense of re-doing it, this order holds that the fairest and most

Case 3:06-cv-05169-WHA Document 37 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 3
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

practical course is to hold defendant Larson to the strategy he himself staked out near the outset

of the case. Due to Mr. Larson’s refusal to testify during the discovery period in this case and in

accordance with his unilateral announcement months ago, he shall now not be allowed to testify

at trial or to submit a declaration in opposition to the pending summary judgment motion. 

At trial, counsel shall submit proposed jury instructions to cover the inference that the jury may

draw from his refusal to testify. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05169-WHA Document 37 Filed 08/15/07 Page 3 of 3