Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02951/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02951-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTON EWING,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv2951-BAS (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART CITY

DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDERS

[ECF NO. 18]

v.

FARRELL K. LAYTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is the Application for Protective Orders filed on

behalf of certain Defendants (the “City Defendants’) on February 19,

2015, and supplemented on February 20, 2015. (ECF Nos. 18-19). 

Plaintiff responded in opposition on March 9, 2015. (ECF No. 21). City

Defendants replied on March 10, 2015. (ECF No. 22). A hearing was

held on May 1, 2015. As provided below, City Defendants’ Application is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Background 

The Complaint alleges violations of Title 42, United States Code,

Section 1983, against Defendants, mainly law enforcement personnel and

agencies from the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego 

stemming from the arrest of Plaintiff on August 14, 2014. The 

Complaint was removed by City Defendants to this Court from the

- 1 - 14cv2951-BAS (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 28 Filed 05/01/15 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

Superior Court of California on December 15, 2014. (ECF No. 1). 

Plaintiff moved to remand the case to the Superior Court on December

30, 2014. (ECF No. 4). That motion was denied on March 11, 2015. 

(ECF No. 23). City Defendants answered the complaint on January 5,

2015. (ECF No. 5). On April 8, 2015, County Defendants filed a motion

to dismiss the Complaint as it pertains to them. (ECF No. 24). That

motion remains pending. 

Discussion

City Defendants seek a protective order from this Court pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) to govern the interactions of the parties. Plaintiff

opposes primarily on the basis that Rule 26 governs discovery and

disclosure rendering the order sought by City Defendants overbroad. 

City Defendants agree that Rule 26 governs discovery but assert that

inasmuch as the opening of discovery is imminent, the order sought is

ripe. The Court agrees with City Defendants that despite the fact that

discovery has not yet commenced, the Court may issue an order under

Rules 26(b) and (c) governing the manner in which discovery shall be

conducted in this case. 

City Defendants seek to restrain Plaintiff in nine ways. Each will

be discussed below:

Request No. 1 

City Defendants seek an order requiring Plaintiff to disclose the

names of all friends and acquaintances employed by the City Attorney’s

Office.

This request is DENIED. City Defendants may seek such

discovery, if relevant, through proper means under the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

- 2 - 14cv2951-BAS (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 28 Filed 05/01/15 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

Request No. 2

City Defendants seek an order prohibiting Plaintiff from having any

contact regarding this litigation with any person employed by City

Attorney’s Office other than its counsel of record. In his opposition,

Plaintiff states that he will no longer communicate with City Defendants’

counsel. 

Defendants’ request is GRANTED IN PART as follows:

In connection with this litigation, Plaintiff may not contact

any person known to him to be employed by the City Attorney’s

Office other than City Defendants’ counsel of record except as

authorized by the Court or by agreement with counsel of record. 

Plaintiff must comply with any orders of this Court mandating

communication with counsel of record (e.g. meet and confer

requirements for discovery). 

Request No. 3

City Defendants seek an order requiring the parties to

communicate only by electronic mail, other than through pleadings filed

with the Court.

This request is GRANTED IN PART as follows:

In connection with this litigation, the Court relieves the

parties of the requirement to meet and confer personally

regarding discovery and discovery disputes. Any required meet

and confer may be conducted by telephone. Meeting and

conferring through electronic or traditional mail is not

authorized.

Request No. 4

In a request related to Request No. 3 above, City Defendants seek

an order requiring that any telephonic or personal meetings be recorded. 

- 3 - 14cv2951-BAS (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 28 Filed 05/01/15 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

This request is DENIED as moot. During the hearing on this

request counsel for the City Defendants and Plaintiff agreed to record

any telephonic or personal meetings between them. 

Request No. 5

City Defendants request that all depositions or other personal

meetings occur within a facility of the District Court and during such

times as the parties may have access to a judge of this Court or a Courtappointed referee. 

This request is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff has

represented himself in several cases in this Court. The Court, in

reviewing those dockets, has not identified any in which Plaintiff has 

been subject to an order to show cause or been sanctioned. Consequently,

the Court believes that the parties can and will conduct themselves in a

civil and professional manner going forward. 

Request No. 6

City Defendants request that Plaintiff be barred from publishing

the personal addresses or telephone numbers of any City Defendants,

employees of City Defendants or employees of the City Attorney’s Office.

This request is GRANTED IN PART, as follows: To the extent

that Plaintiff obtains any non-public personal information,

including addresses and telephone numbers, of any witness or

counsel, including staff assigned to work with the witness or

counsel in connection with this case, Plaintiff shall not disclose

such information to the public. 

Request No. 7

City Defendants request that Plaintiff be barred from physically

stalking or cyberstalking any City Defendant, any employee of any City

Defendant or any employee of the City Attorney’s Office.

- 4 - 14cv2951-BAS (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 28 Filed 05/01/15 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

This request is DENIED. To the extent that Plaintiff engages in

any criminal behavior, in connection with this case or otherwise, his

behavior may be investigated and prosecuted by the appropriate

authorities. 

Request No. 8

City Defendants request an order prohibiting the parties from

commencing discovery until all parties are served or dismissed and there

is full compliance with all Court orders re the conduct of discovery.

This request is GRANTED IN PART. In federal civil cases, absent

an order to the contrary, discovery may not commence until the parties

have met and conferred under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f). See Fed.R.Civ.P.

26(d)(1). In this Court, the Rule 26(f) does not occur until after the Early

Neutral Evaluation. In this case, neither the Early Neutral Evaluation

nor the Rule 26(f) conference have taken place. The Court does not

intend to conduct the Early Neutral Evaluation until the pending motion

to dismiss by the County Defendants is ruled upon. Accordingly, no

discovery is authorized at this time. 

Request No. 9

City Defendants seek an order requiring Plaintiff to negotiate in

good faith with the City Attorney’s Office before attempting personal

service of any document on the City or upon any City employee. If no

agreement can be reached, Plaintiff must seek leave of Court before

attempting personal service.

This request is DENIED as moot. During the hearing on this

request, counsel for the City Defendants agreed to accept service of

discovery and other lawful process on behalf of any City employee in

connection with this case. Counsel made clear, however, that he cannot

accept service of any complaint and related summonses on behalf of the

- 5 - 14cv2951-BAS (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 28 Filed 05/01/15 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

City of San Diego. 

Conclusion

City Defendants’ Application is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART as provided above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 1, 2015

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 6 - 14cv2951-BAS (MDD)

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 28 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 6