Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00060-39/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

COREY LAMAR SMITH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB

ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON MOTION TO 

PERPETUATE TESTIMONY AND REQUIRING 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING AND EVIDENCE

(ECF Nos. 198, 200, 201, 202, 203)

DEADLINE: JUNE 10, 2016

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Garland Baker’s emergency motion to perpetuate 

his testimony which is opposed by Defendants. Plaintiff seeks an order under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 27 to permit his testimony to be taken for use in further proceedings. Rule 27 is 

available in limited situations where testimony might be lost to a litigant unless it is taken 

immediately. Ash v. Cort, 512 F.2d 909, 912 (3d Cir. 1975). It is within the discretion of the 

court to order the taking of the deposition “if it is satisfied that a failure or a delay of justice may 

thereby be prevented.” In re Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 251 F.R.D. 97, 98-99 (N.D.N.Y.

2008) (quoting Mosseller v. United States, 158 F.2d 380, 382 (2d Cir.1946)). 

Under Rule 27, the party seeking to perpetuate testimony “must demonstrate a need for 

the testimony or evidence that cannot easily be accommodated by other potential witnesses, must 

show that the testimony is relevant, not simply cumulative, and must convince the court that the 

evidence sought throws a different, greater, or additional light on a key issue.” 19th St. Baptist 

Church v. St. Peters Episcopal Church, 190 F.R.D. 345, 347 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (internal punctuation 

and citation omitted).

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 204 Filed 06/01/16 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

Plaintiff Baker is one of a number of plaintiffs who have filed complaints alleging claims

due to their exposure to Valley Fever. The Court is aware that this issue may arise in the future

due to the number of plaintiffs who are alleging similar medical conditions. Accordingly, the 

Court finds it appropriate to set forth the expectation for this and any future motions to perpetuate 

testimony. 

While the burden on Plaintiff to demonstrate the need to perpetuate his testimony is not 

extraordinarily high, the Court will require something beyond mere hearsay to demonstrate the 

need for the testimony. Unless the parties stipulate to perpetuate the testimony of a specific 

plaintiff, the plaintiff’s motion should contain competent medical evidence demonstrating the 

need to perpetuate the testimony. In this instance, Plaintiff has only submitted hearsay statements 

while Defendants have presented medical evidence indicating that while there was a medical 

issue which required a shunt revision, Plaintiff’s condition appears to be stable. 

Plaintiffs are advised that this Court analyzes the matters brought herein based upon the 

law and is not swayed by counsel’s interpretation of the opinions of judges expressed in other 

cases. When a motion is raised, relevant legal authority should be provided so that the Court has 

benefit of Plaintiffs’ position under the law. The Court assumes that all counsel who come before 

it zealously represent their clients. The fact that a counsel objects or requires what they believe 

the law mandates should not be construed as a larger “conspiracy” to avoid the truth or to obstruct 

justice. In bringing matters before this Court, the expectation is that counsel will present relevant 

case law and evidence and not argue counsel’s opinion regarding matters not at issue here. The

Court takes the matters raised seriously as do the parties here, and the Court is aware it may be 

required to address similar issues in the future during the pendency of this appeal. 

Based upon this advisement, the Court orders the additional submission of evidence and 

briefing rather than denying, without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion based upon the present record 

and Plaintiff’s burden. If Defendants subsequently determine that Plaintiff will meet his burden 

without the need for further involvement of the Court, the parties can simply submit a stipulation; 

otherwise, the court will address the matter by applying the relevant law to the facts as 

determined by the Court.

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 204 Filed 06/01/16 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

Therefore, the Court shall defer ruling on Plaintiff Baker’s motion to perpetuate his 

testimony to allow Plaintiff to present evidence consistent with this order demonstrating the need 

for the relief requested here. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall file supplemental briefing and any additional evidence on or before 

June 10, 2016;

2. Defendants opposition, if any, shall be filed on or before June 13, 2016; and

3. Further argument on the motion is set for June 14, 2016 at 3:45 p.m. in Courtroom 

9.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB Document 204 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 3