Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00684-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEIGH GEAN MEGARGEE and

KATIE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

BILL WITTMAN, CHAD RHYMAN and Dan

BAKER, in their individual capacity and

sheriffs of the COUNTY OF TULARE, and

DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00684 LJO GSA

ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENT

REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE

(Doc. 77)

On January 8, 2007, the parties filed a joint statement regarding a discovery dispute pursuant

to Local Rule 37-251. The joint statement makes reference to a Motion to Compel brought by the

Defendants in which Defendants request that Plaintiff Katie Taylor answer deposition questions

regarding her history of drug use prior to, and after, a shooting in which Plaintiff and her boyfriend

were shot by Tulare County Sheriff Officers. The parties are requesting that the motion be heard

before this court on January 11, 2008, at 9:30 am. 

The court is aware that the non-expert discovery deadline in this case is January 31, 2008.

(Doc. 76). However, Local Rule 37-251(a) provides that a motion to compel “may be had by the

filing of a notice of motion and motion scheduling the hearing date on the calendar at least twentyone days from the date of filing.” The Rule provides the twenty-one day rule does not apply when

the notice of motion and motion are filed concurrently with the joint statement. “If the notice of

motion and motion are filed concurrently with the joint statement, the motion shall be placed on the

Case 1:06-cv-00684-LJO-GSA Document 79 Filed 01/10/08 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

next regularly scheduled calendar for the Magistrate Judge or Judge hearing the motion at least three

court days thereafter.” Id. In this case, Defendants have not filed a motion or a notice of motion.

As such, there is no motion currently before the court and the matter will not be heard on January

11, 2008 at 9:30 am. Defendants shall file a motion and notice of motion no later than Tuesday,

January 15, 2008 if they wish to proceed. The court is available to hear this motion on January 18,

2008 at 9:30 am. 

In the Joint Statement, Plaintiff is asserting that her past or present drug use has no bearing

on the issues at hand in this case, nor are the contested questions likely to lead to admissible

evidence at trial. Plaintiff contends that the questions invade Ms. Taylor’s privacy rights since she

was a minor at the time of the shooting, that any alleged criminal behavior is completely irrelevant

to Plaintiff’s claims, and the questions are more prejudicial than probative. Plaintiff also asserts that

requiring her to answer these questions while her criminal case remains open invades her right to

invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege. Defendants rebut Plaintiff’s claims with regard to the Fifth

Amendment arguing that the privilege as to Plaintiff’s pre- and post- incident drug use was not

properly asserted at the deposition and is therefore waived.

The Court notes that other than citing Evidence Code 352 which applies to state rather than

federal cases, and the Fifth Amendment, Plaintiff cites no case authority in support of her positions.

Plaintiff is advised that failure to provide the Court with additional authorities may result in the

granting of the Defendants’ motion. Moreover, given Defendants’ arguments with regard to a waiver

of the Fifth Amendment rights, and the expedited nature of the motion, the court will be requiring

further briefing on this issue. The parties shall address the following:

1) Plaintiff indicates that a criminal case is still pending against her. It is unclear if Plaintiff

is referring to criminal charges related to the residential burglary which led to the shooting, or if there

are other cases pending against Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall clearly indicate what criminal case she is

referring to, what charges are pending, and how specifically answering questions related to her drug

use pre- and post-incident would violate her right to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege; and

2) Both parties shall address whether the extensive testimony already given by Plaintiff

regarding her drug use during the twenty-four hour period prior to the incident constitutes a waiver

Case 1:06-cv-00684-LJO-GSA Document 79 Filed 01/10/08 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

of her Fifth Amendment Rights as to her drug use in the pre- and post-incident period. See, Taylor

Deposition, 29:18-25; 30: 1-4; 30:19-22; 31:6-11; 31:17-25; 32: 1-14; 34: 10-13; 35:1-3; 35:18 -25;

35: 15-17; and 

3) Plaintiff asserts that the she objected to the contested questions on Fifth Amendment

grounds prior the completion of her deposition. However, a review of the transcript indicates that

the Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment objections related only to questions involving Plaintiff providing

drugs to others, not taking them herself. See, Taylor Deposition, 34:17-25; 35:1-3; 35: 13-17. Both

parties shall address whether Plaintiff is now precluded from raising the Fifth Amendment privilege

objection in this motion since, although the privilege was not asserted at the time of the deposition,

Plaintiff refused to answer the contested questions on other grounds and did not incriminate herself.

The parties shall submit the required filings no later than Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 12:00

pm. The hearing on the motion will be scheduled for Friday, January 18, 2008 at 9:30 in Courtroom

10, after Defendants file their Motion to Compel and the Notice of Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 10, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00684-LJO-GSA Document 79 Filed 01/10/08 Page 3 of 3