Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05924/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05924-5/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

Defendants are 14 law enforcement officers and detectives with the Fresno County Sheriff Department and 1

will be referred to collectively as “defendants.”

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON SAUNDERS, et. al, CASE NO. CV F 04-5924 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

EXTEND PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION

vs. (Docs. 81-83.)

CYNTHIA KNIGHT, et. al,

Defendants.

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging wrongful search and seizure of property, defendants1

seek to extend the seven-hour F.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2) limit of pro se plaintiff Sharon Saunders’ (“Ms.

Saunders’”) deposition to 16 hours and to videotape the deposition. This Court considered defendants’

motion to extend Ms. Saunders’ deposition on the record and VACATES the January 26, 2007 hearing.

See Local Rule 78-230(c). For the reasons discussed below, this Court GRANTS defendants up to 16

hours over two days for Ms. Saunders’ videotaped deposition. 

BACKGROUND

On January 5, 1999 after an extensive undercover investigation, defendants executed 10 search

and arrest warrants at the Fashion Fair Mall community meeting room in connection with what

Case 1:04-cv-05924-LJO-GSA Document 86 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 6
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

defendants characterize as a pyramid scheme of Constitutional Colleagues in Granite (“CCG”). Ms.

Saunders was arrested, and items were seized during her home’s search. Ms. Saunders proceeds on her

second amended complaint to allege wrongful search and seizure claims against defendants.

Ms. Saundersrefused defendants’ request to dismiss defendants “not central to her case” to limit

the scope of discovery. Defendantsset Ms. Saunders’ January30, 2007 video-taped deposition, and Ms.

Saunders refused defendants’ request for a 16-hour deposition. 

On December 12, 2006, the parties filed their papers to address the disputed deposition length.

Defendants seek Ms. Saunders’ 16-hour deposition (without prejudice to seek additional time if Ms.

Saunders impedes or delays examination) on grounds that:

1. Each of the 14 defendants is “entitled to discovery of exactly what facts plaintiff claims

to have which establish their alleged liability” and to “separate line of questioning

concerning what exactly plaintiff claims each did or did not do, in alleged derogation of

plaintiff’s rights”;

2. Due to the voluminous background material and exhaustive investigation regarding the

CCG pyramid scheme, defendants are entitled to ascertain facts on which Ms. Saunders

relies to assert that defendants’ supportive materials are false or that defendants lacked

probable cause;

3. Ms. Saunders alleges damages exceeding $6.5 million, including $1.2 million lost wages

and benefits from termination of her St. Agnes Hospital employment;

4. Defendants question the validity of Ms. Saunders’ written discovery responses and

document production lacking documents of new employment in that Ms. Saunders

remarked to defense counsel that she resists a 16-hour deposition because she must

“work for a living”; and

5. Ms. Saunders’ deposition will require “an exhaustive analysis” of inducements to join

the CCGpyramid scheme, includingCCGdisseminated materials and public statements.

Lastly, defendants claim that Ms. Saunders refuses to submit to a video-taped deposition

although defendants’ notice of her deposition indicates it “will be recorded by sound-and-visual means.”

Ms. Saunders responds that defendants fail to meet their burden to extend the seven-hour

Case 1:04-cv-05924-LJO-GSA Document 86 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 6
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

deposition limit in that:

1. Defense counsel is skilled and experienced and will require less time to depose Ms.

Saunders;

2. Based on their acknowledged extensive background information, defendants “know the

facts and evidence of the case backwards and forwards, and the only real substantial

differences in the case are a few disputed facts regarding the issues of probable cause to

seize and arrest”;

3. Ms. Saunders’ damages claims are not grounds for a comprehensive examination in that

the Court and jury will determine her damages;

4. Since Ms. Saunders “is not nearly done conducting her own discovery at the present she

can assert at this time she will not have too much to contribute at any such proposed

deposition in the way of specific facts regarding what each defendant did”;

5. The deposition is redundant in that defendants have the seized materials and information,

which were not returned to Ms. Saunders to prevent her to participate in “exhaustive

analysis, as she has no comprehensive information at the present time to do so, rendering

the examination proposed by counsel more speculation than reality”;

6. Defense counsel attempts to engage in discovery abuse “amounting to a trial before the

trial to which he is not entitled”; and

7. “[M]uch of what counsel is proposing . . . is not feasible and will not actually occur at

any such deposition.”

DISCUSSION

Scope Of Discovery

The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair

contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent possible,” United States

v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S.Ct. 983, 987 (1958), and to narrow and clarify the issues

in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 388 (1947).

F.R.Civ.P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:

Parties mayobtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant

Case 1:04-cv-05924-LJO-GSA Document 86 Filed 01/04/07 Page 3 of 6
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

F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2) addresses limits on discovery:

2

By order, the court may alter the limits in these rules on . . . the length of depositions under Rule

30. . . . The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods otherwise permitted under these rules and

by any local rules shall be limited by the court if it determines that: ( i ) the discovery sought is

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient,

less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by

discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy,

the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the

proposed discovery in resolving the issues. (Bold added.)

4

to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody,

condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity

and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause,

the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the

action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Seven-Hour Deposition Limit

F.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2) addresses the seven-hour deposition limit:

Unless otherwise authorized by the court or stipulated by the parties, a deposition

is limited to one day of seven hours. The court must allow additional time

consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed for a fair examination of the deponent or if the 2

deponent or another person, or other circumstance, impedes or delays the examination.

The Advisory Committee Notes for the 2000 Amendment to F.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2) address

extending the seven-hour limitation:

Paragraph (2) imposes a presumptive durational limitation of one day of seven

hours for any deposition. . . . This limitation contemplates that there will be reasonable

breaks during the day for lunch and other reasons, and that the only time to be counted

is the time occupied by the actual deposition. . . . The presumptive duration may be

extended, or otherwise altered, by agreement. Absent agreement, a court orderis needed.

The party seeking a court order to extend the examination, or otherwise alter the

limitations, is expected to show good cause to justify such an order.

Parties considering the time for a deposition – and courts asked to order an

extension – might consider a variety of factors. For example, if the witness needs an

interpreter, that may prolong the examination. If the examination will cover events

occurring over a long period of time, that may justify allowing additional time. In

cases in which the witness will be questioned about numerous or lengthy documents,

it is often desirable for the interrogating party to send copies of the documents to the

witness sufficiently in advance of the deposition so that the witness can become familiar

with them. Should the witness nevertheless not read the documents in advance, thereby

prolonging the deposition, a court could consider that a reason for extending the time

limit. If the examination reveals that documents have been requested but not

produced, that may justify further examination once production has occurred. In multiCase 1:04-cv-05924-LJO-GSA Document 86 Filed 01/04/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

party cases, the need for each party to examine the witness may warrant additional

time, although duplicative questioning should be avoided and parties with similar

interests should strive to designate one lawyer to question about areas of common

interest. 

It is expected that in most instances the parties and the witness will make

reasonable accommodations to avoid the need to resort to the court. . . .

Preoccupation with timing is to be avoided.

The rule directs the court to allow additional time where consistent with Rule

26(b)(2) if needed for a fair examination of the deponent. (Bold added.)

Ms. Saunders proceeds on a 36-page complaint against 14 individual defendants and declined

defendants’ invitation to dismiss peripheral defendants to limit the scope of discovery. Ms. Saunders

seeks damages exceeding $6.5 million. Ms. Saunders has raised numerous issues relevant to her claims

and defense of them. Defendants are justified to seek a deposition extension in light of Ms. Saunders’

claims that, despite their extensive investigation and voluminous background materials, defendants

lacked probable cause to arrest Ms. Saunders and to search her home.

Ms. Saunders offers little meaningful to challenge a deposition extension. Ms. Saunders fails

to articulate what she characterizes as “a few disputed facts regarding the issues of probable cause to

seize and arrest.” Ms. Saunders’ assertion that the Court and jury will determine her damages

undermines her damages claim exceeding $6.5 million. Ms. Saunders fails to demonstrate that defense

counsel seeks to abuse the deposition process, especially given her far reaching claims. Ms. Saunders’

grounds to oppose a deposition extension raise questions whether she attempts to obstruct defendants’

legitimate discovery. Ms. Saunders appears to claim that she will offer little to support her claims

because defendants have not returned materials seized during 1999 searches. This Court anticipates

defense counsel will present Ms. Saunders at her deposition materials and documents to review to

address Ms. Saunders’ claims and defense of them. The fact that Ms. Saunders has not completed her

discovery does not prevent defendants to test Ms. Saunders’ claims. If appropriate, this Court

encourages defense counsel to provide Ms. Saunders documents to review in advance of her deposition

to promote efficiency. This Court reminds Ms. Saunders of her obligation to provide complete, nonevasive discovery responses. 

As to videotaping Ms. Saunders’ deposition, F.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(2) so permits:

The party taking the deposition shall state in the notice the method by which the

Case 1:04-cv-05924-LJO-GSA Document 86 Filed 01/04/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

testimony shall be recorded. Unless the court orders otherwise, it may be recorded by

sound, sound-and-visual, or stenographic means, and the party taking the deposition shall

bear the cost of the recording.

Defendants’ notice of Ms. Saunders’ deposition properly notes “the deposition will be recorded by

sound-and-visual means; the sound-and-visual recording will thereafter be transcribed.” Ms. Saunders

demonstrates no grounds to prevent her video-taped deposition.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court GRANTS defendants up to 16 hours over two days

for plaintiff Sharon Saunders’ videotaped deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05924-LJO-GSA Document 86 Filed 01/04/07 Page 6 of 6