Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00189/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1 

14cv189-BEN (DHB) 

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 

SARA DEES; L.G., a minor; G.G., a 

minor, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 14cv189-BEN (DHB) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE 

REQUEST TO EXTEND THE 

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF 

DATE TO ALLOW THE 

DEPOSITIONS OF SIBYL WESCOE, 

M.D. AND JOHN ANDERSON, ESQ. 

[ECF No. 44] 

 On October 23, 2015, Defendants County of San Diego, Caitlin McCann, Gloria 

Escamilla-Huidor, Srisuda Walsh, Alberto Borboa, Norma Rincon, and Corey Kissel filed 

an ex parte request to extend the October 23, 2015 deadline to complete expert discovery 

to allow for the depositions of two individuals: Sibyl Wescoe, M.D., and John Anderson, 

Esq. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiffs Sara Dees and minors L.G. and G.G., through their Guardian 

Ad Litem, Robert Schiebelhut, filed an opposition to Defendants’ request on October 27, 

2015. (ECF No. 45.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ request is GRANTED 

with respect to Dr. Wescoe and DENIED with respect to Mr. Anderson. 

/ / / 

Case 3:14-cv-00189-BEN-DHB Document 46 Filed 10/30/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

14cv189-BEN (DHB) 

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

 By way of background, and as relevant to the issue presently before the Court, 

Plaintiffs allege in this lawsuit that in November 2012, Plaintiff Sara Dees’ husband, 

Robert Dees, took two photographs of his daughter (Plaintiff Sara Dees’ stepdaughter) 

while she was unclothed because “she was learning in school about puberty and body 

changes and wanted to have photographs taken periodically of herself unclothed that she 

could use to create a slide show of her growth and development. Robert Dees did show his 

daughter how to use a camera and did take two photographs of his natural daughter. Those 

photographs were never downloaded or printed, in fact in December [2012] Robert erased 

the photographs after discussions with family.” (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 13.)1

 

 Defendants contend that “[o]ne of the issues in this lawsuit concerns the conduct of 

Plaintiff Sara Dees after she learned of photographs taken of her step-daughter. Ms. Dees 

has stated that the decision to have the photographs deleted was based on statements made 

to her by Dr. Wescoe and Mr. Anderson. Thus, Defendants believe it is necessary to take 

the deposition of Dr. Wescoe and Mr. Anderson.” (ECF No. 44-1 at 1:27-2:4.) 

A. Dr. Wescoe

 Regarding Dr. Wescoe, Defendants contend that an extension of the October 23, 

2015 expert discovery cutoff is warranted because “Dr. Wescoe is not available to be 

deposed until November 3, 2015.” (ECF No. 44 at 1:26-27.) On October 22, 2015, Dr. 

Wescoe’s attorney informed Defendants’ counsel that he, Dr. Wescoe’s attorney, was 

unavailable to attend a deposition on October 23, 2015, but that he was willing to produce 

Dr. Wescoe for her deposition on November 3, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. 

 Plaintiffs maintain that Dr. Wescoe was never properly served with a deposition 

subpoena, but rather the subpoena was only for document production and, pursuant to the 

psychotherapist-patient privilege, such documents are privileged and not discoverable. 

                                                                

1

 Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains additional allegations, including the subsequent 

investigation by the County into the photographs and resulting child custody proceedings 

(see generally ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 14-29), but the Court does not summarize them here as they 

are not necessary to resolve Defendants’ ex parte request. 

Case 3:14-cv-00189-BEN-DHB Document 46 Filed 10/30/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

14cv189-BEN (DHB) 

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

 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants’ subpoena to Dr. Wescoe was not 

a deposition subpoena. However, based on the fact that the subpoena was accompanied by 

a notice of deposition, it appears Defendants’ intent was to conduct the deposition of Dr. 

Wescoe. The Court will excuse Defendants’ failure in this regard and permit Dr. Wescoe’s 

deposition to go forward after the October 23, 2015 cutoff. However, Defendants are 

cautioned that “confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her 

patients in the course of diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure 

under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Jaffe v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 15 

(1996). The issue of the scope of this privilege as applied to this case, and whether there 

exists a waiver of the privilege, are not properly before the Court given that Defendants’ 

requested relief is to permit the deposition to take place after the cutoff. Accordingly, the 

Court declines to address at this time any potential arguments Plaintiffs may assert with 

respect to the privilege. 

 The Court also notes that the November 3, 2015 deposition date was unilaterally 

selected between counsel for Defendants and Dr. Wescoe, and that Plaintiffs’ counsel was 

not consulted and is not available on that date. Accordingly, the Court orders that Dr. 

Wescoe’s deposition shall not proceed until a date is selected that is agreeable to all parties, 

Dr. Wescoe, and their counsel. Counsel are instructed to meet and confer to reach an 

agreeable date. Absent further order from the Court, Dr. Wescoe’s deposition shall take 

place no later than November 10, 2015. 

B. Mr. Anderson

 Regarding Mr. Anderson, Defendants contend that an extension of the October 23, 

2015 expert discovery cutoff is warranted because “Mr. Anderson, though he was served 

with a deposition subpoena this week [i.e., the week of October 19-23], has asserted his 

subpoena was not timely served and objected to appearing for his deposition on October 

23, 2015.” (ECF No. 44 at 1:27-2:1.) 

 As Plaintiffs’ opposition makes clear, Defendants did not personally serve Mr. 

Anderson with a deposition subpoena until 3:55 p.m. on October 22, 2015, less than 

Case 3:14-cv-00189-BEN-DHB Document 46 Filed 10/30/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

14cv189-BEN (DHB) 

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

twenty-four hours before the scheduled deposition. This eleventh-hour effort “fails to 

allow a reasonable time to comply.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i). As a result, the Court 

QUASHES the subpoena served on Mr. Anderson on October 22, 2015. 

 The Court also notes that Defendants’ prior attempt to serve Mr. Anderson with a 

subpoena is insufficient. That subpoena, mailed on October 15, 2015, was not personally 

served on Mr. Anderson, as required by Rule 45. Moreover, that subpoena was for 

document production rather than deposition testimony, yet there was no documents 

identified for production. And even if the Court overlooked these technical violations of 

Rule 45, Mr. Anderson did not receive the subpoena until his staff found it outside his 

office door on October 19, 2015, four days before the date scheduled for compliance. This 

subpoena also “fails to allow a reasonable time to comply.” Id. As a result, the Court 

QUASHES Defendants’ initial subpoena to Dr. Anderson. 

 As Defendants failed to initiate discovery with respect to Mr. Anderson in order to 

complete the deposition by the October 24, 2015 deadline, the Court declines to extend the 

deadline to permit Defendants to take Mr. Anderson’s deposition. 

C. Conclusion

 For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ ex parte request to extend the October 

23, 2015 expert discovery cutoff is GRANTED as to Dr. Wescoe and DENIED as to Mr. 

Anderson.2

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 30, 2015 

DAVID H. BARTICK 

United States Magistrate Judge 

                                                                

2

 Defendants’ counsel shall serve a copy of this order on Dr. Wescoe’s counsel and 

Mr. Anderson no later than November 2, 2015. 

Case 3:14-cv-00189-BEN-DHB Document 46 Filed 10/30/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4