Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN MOE HUMPHREYS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-03808 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY

SANCTIONS

Now before the Court is a discovery dispute in this matter. Plaintiff seeks evidentiary sanctions

against defendants for conduct that occurred at the reopened deposition of John Cummins. For the

following reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff originally took the deposition of Cummins on March 21, 2006. During the deposition,

defense counsel instructed Cummins not to answer eleven questions covering three general subject

areas: a so-called “sweetheart deal” involving Executive Associate Athletic Director Mark Stephens;

another “sweetheart deal” with Athletic Director Stephen Gladstone; and the report of Edmond Fennessy

about the University’s compliance with its own policies in laying off plaintiff. After the deposition, the

parties unsuccessfully met and conferred about these questions, after which plaintiff moved this Court

to compel answers to the questions.

The Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel. Unfortunately, because plaintiff’s motion

accidentally referred to Gladstone as Stephens, thereby omitting any reference to Gladstone, this Court’s

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 373 Filed 05/23/06 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

1

Because of this error, the Court’s order was somewhat ambiguous. While it granted the motion

to compel regarding all eleven questions that plaintiff identified, it erroneously stated that these

questions only involved Stephens and Fennessy.

2

order did not include any direct reference to the question about Gladstone.1 Based on this oversight,

when Cummins’s deposition was reopened defense counsel asserted that any questions about Gladstone

were beyond the scope of the Court’s order. Because plaintiff believes that this position was improper,

and because of other conduct of defense counsel at the reopened deposition, plaintiff moves for

sanctions.

DISCUSSION

The brunt of plaintiff’s motion is focused at defense counsel’s instruction to Cummins not to

answer the question about Gladstone. The Court, however, cannot find this sanctionable. While

plaintiff had the correct understanding of the intent of this Court’s order, that order unfortunately did

not refer to Gladstone by name. Defense counsel was therefore technically correct in his observation

that the Court’s order explicitly mentioned only Stephens and Fennessy. The Court cannot find that

defense counsel was wholly unreasonable in his interpretation of the prior order.

Plaintiff also challenges defense counsel’s conduct during the rest of the deposition, arguing that

defense counsel made inappropriate speaking objections and removed Cummins from the room to coach

him. The Court has reviewed the deposition transcript, and does not believe that defense counsel’s

conduct was sanctionable. While defense counsel removed Cummins from the room on two occasions,

those occasions occurred when questions were pending that may have implicated the attorney-client

privilege. Aside from that aspect, the questions posed were not particularly sensitive, and there is no

indication that defense counsel was improperly coaching the witness. As for defense counsel’s

objections, they were more verbose than necessary under the federal rules, but were not so improper as

to warrant sanctions.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 373 Filed 05/23/06 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

evidentiary sanctions [Docket No. 255].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 373 Filed 05/23/06 Page 3 of 3