Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06542/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06542-13/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY WILLIS, CASE NO. CV-F-04-6542 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION 

vs.

JOSEPH MULLINS, et al., 

Defendant.

 / 

The Court has received and reviewed defendant City of Bakersfield’s request for clarification

of this Court’s order on the motion for protective order. (Doc. 102.) On February 8, 2006, this Court

granted in part and denied in part the City’s motion for a protective order for its F.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)

deposition. The City seeks clarification of whether area of inquiry 2 of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

notice may be inquired into at the deposition. Area of inquiry 2 deals with the knowledge of the “subject

incident.” 

In plaintiff’s opposition to the City’s motion for protective order, he stated he was not seeking

to inquire of this area. In his opposition, plaintiff stated: 

“Plaintiff regrets he did not have in mind or read Judge Ishii’s April 15,

2005 order before he served his notice of deposition. Had he read that

order, he would have limited the topics to be covered in the Rule 30(b)(6)

City deposition to those that remain in this action as viable bases for

plaintiff’s Monell claim, and in light of that order, plaintiff of course

must and will limit the deposition topics to those that survive the April

15 order. Thus, the deposition properly may be limited to evidence of

punitive damages issues.” (Doc. 98, Opposition p.2:6-13) (Emphasis

added.)

In the opposition, plaintiff concluded his argument by stating: 

Case 1:04-cv-06542-AWI-BAM Document 104 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 2
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

[P]laintiff should be able to depose defendant City as to any and all

matters with respect to which the City paid out, indemnified, or bonded

on appeal any punitive damages for any Bakersfield police officers, and

that would include, potentially, any matters described in the notice of

deposition as items nos. 6, and nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, if there have been

payouts as a result of punitive damages.” (Doc. 98. Opposition p. 5:26-

6:2) (Emphasis added.)

Thus, plaintiff’s opposition stated that only punitive damages were at issue, and that only categories 1,

3, 4, 5, and 6 were at issue. Plaintiff thus acknowledged that the remaining areas of inquiry, including

area no. 2 (“the subject incident”) and subject areas 7, and 8 of the deposition notice were not relevant.

In this Court’s order on the motion for protective order, the Court acknowledged plaintiff’s

acquiescence and stated, “Plaintiff argues, that in light of Judge Ishii ruling, the areas of inquiry at issue

are 1, 3, 4, 5, 6." The Court then ruled as to each area of inquiry for which plaintiff claimed he was

entitled to inquire at the deposition.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request for clarification.

Defendant is reminded of its obligation to meet and confer before bringing matters to the

attention of the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06542-AWI-BAM Document 104 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 2