Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02553/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02553-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 Former plaintiff CARES, Inc. was dismissed by stipulated order on November 1, 2007. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA WALL, individually 1

and on behalf of all those

similarly situated,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-05-2553 FCD GGH 

vs.

MICHAEL O. LEAVITT,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

This case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to E. D. Local Rule 72-

302(a). Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for November 15, 2007, was

defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff Pamela Wall and for sanctions, and

plaintiff’s motion for protective order to quash subpoena on plaintiff’s counsel, Martha Bronson,

and for sanctions. Martha Bronson appeared for plaintiff. Kelli Taylor and Robert Jackson

represented defendant. After reviewing the papers and hearing oral argument, the court now

issues the following order. 

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 98 Filed 11/29/07 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

 Plaintiff’s motion to certify the class is already under submission, to be addressed in a 2

separate opinion.

2

BACKGROUND

This is a proposed class action lawsuit wherein plaintiff Wall purports to 2

represent those individuals who have had problems obtaining return of their third party personal

injury settlement proceeds which they claim are being unlawfully retained and used by defendant. 

She seeks to enjoin the Secretary from certain practices in regard to the Medicare program. 

The portion of the complaint which is pertinent to plaintiff’s motion for protective

order states:

39. At this same time, various telephone conversation are held with

Supervisor Brent Price of UGS. In some of those telephone

conversations, counsel for MS. WALL is told by Brent Price that

(1) UGS customarily includes any and all medicals paid by

Medicare on the day of the third party accident and thereafter, even if the medical coding shows

treatment was for other than accident related conditions; (2) UGS does not do any independent

investigation or procuring of records when beneficiary

questions a medical being unrelated and the beneficiary must

obtain their own medicals and/or physician letters to prove that

questionable medicals are not related; and, (3) UGS customarily

increases liens to include more medicals even after they receive

knowledge that the case has settled. In one of those conversations

Brent Price is told that MS. WALL would like to apply for a

waiver of overpayment and Brent Price agrees to send the waiver

form and information.

Compl., ¶ 39.

DISCUSSION

At the outset the court notes personal attacks on opposing counsel, which will not

be tolerated. The court will not impose sanctions at the present time. The parties are warned

that in future, personal attacks will be sanctioned at $50 per word. 

The parties also failed to properly comply with E.D. Local Rule 37-251 and this

court’s orders which required not only the filing of a joint statement but meeting and conferring

in preparation of the joint statement. The parties are warned that failure to abide by this rule in

Case 2:05-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 98 Filed 11/29/07 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

3

future will be grounds for sanctions. Furthermore, all filings submitted after the deadline for

filing the joint statements in regard to the instant motions will be stricken.

I. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Pamela Wall

At hearing, the parties indicated their agreement to hold Wall’s deposition on

November 29, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Failure to abide by this

agreement will be grounds for future sanctions.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena on Martha Bronson

Plaintiff and her counsel, Martha Bronson, move for a protective order to enjoin

the taking of Bronson’s deposition. Bronson claims that defendant is trying to take her

deposition for purposes of harassment only, as defendant has not tried to obtain discovery

elsewhere. Although defendant points to Bronson’s involvement in phone conversations and

other communications pertinent to the claims, Bronson argues that the fact that she may be a

percipient witness, by itself, is not enough to meet the rigid test for taking opposing counsel’s

deposition. 

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly preclude the

deposition of a party’s attorney, the cases discourage it to the extent that such a discovery request

often gives the opposing party good cause for a protective order. See, SEC v. Morelli, 143

F.R.D. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Buford v. Holloday, 133 F.R.D. 487 (S.D. Miss. 1990). West

Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach County, 132 F.R.D. 301 (S.D. Fla. 1990). The near

presumption in favor of a protective order may be overcome where the attorney is a percipient

witness to nonprivileged information. Schwarzer, et al., Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, §

11:113.3 (1992). 

The party seeking to depose the opposing party’s counsel has the burden to show

three elements:

(1) [n]o other means exist to obtain the information than to depose

opposing counsel [citation ommitted]; (2) the information sought is

relevant and nonprivileged; and (3) the information is crucial to the

Case 2:05-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 98 Filed 11/29/07 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

 Brent Price states in his declaration that he never demanded any non-MSP monies from 3

plaintiff and Bronson indicated she would send a check for the MSP amount and the $15,000

settlement check for Medicare to endorse. She sent only the settlement check and not the MSP

amounts, stating that she was concerned it would “expire.” Price Decl. at ¶¶ 7, 8, 9. 

4

preparation of the case.

Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986). 

The Shelton criteria will be utilized by this court. The portion of the complaint

which renders Ms. Bronson a percipient witness has been set forth above. Paragraph 39 outlines

telephone conversations between Ms. Bronson and UGS representative Brent Price which are

relevant and not privileged, and which would necessitate Bronson’s deposition as it contains

Bronson’s personal observations. Defendant has also shown that Bronson’s statements conflict

with those of other witnesses, which renders her statements crucial to the preparation of

defendant’s case, and not available from any other source. At hearing, Ms. Bronson was offered 3

the option of striking paragraph 39 of the complaint or submitting to deposition. She chose to

strike paragraph 39. Therefore, Ms. Bronson is prohibited from rebutting Brent Price’s testimony

with her own declaration or testimony. Letters referred to in the complaint would also require

counsel’s deposition in regard to their substance. Therefore, they are acceptable only insofar as

they may give notice to the other side or indicate demands made, but not in regard to the

substantive evidence they may contain. Plaintiff may use these letters for no other substantive

evidentiary purpose in this litigation. Plaintiff must establish her case through evidentiary

sources other than her counsel’s statements, affidavit, declaration or testimony. Defendant’s use

of these letters or other such evidence is not limited.

At hearing, plaintiff’s counsel argued to all such restrictions in order to avoid her

personal deposition.

III. Other Discovery Disputes

Also mentioned in the papers, but not specifically raised by the parties via motion,

was plaintiff’s failure to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. 

Case 2:05-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 98 Filed 11/29/07 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

 Because a motion regarding whether plaintiff stipulated to responses without any 4

objections (substantive or routine) is not before the court, the court will not give an advisory

opinion at this time. 

5

The parties have now agreed that plaintiff shall produce all overdue responses, without

objections, by November 26, 2007 at 12:00 p.m. 4

To the extent that initial disclosures need to be supplemented, they shall be

supplemented by November 26, 2007. The parties are referred to the amended scheduling order,

filed October 24, 2007, with respect to expert disclosures and discovery.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order to enjoin the deposition of Martha

Bronson, and for sanctions, filed October 15, 2007, is granted in part in accordance with the

terms described in this order. Paragraph 39 of the complaint is stricken. Ms. Bronson is

prohibited from rebutting Brent Price’s testimony with her own declaration or testimony. Letters

written to or from Ms. Bronson as referred to in the complaint may be used by plaintiff only to

show notice was given to the other side or demands made, but not in regard to the substantive

evidence they may contain. Plaintiff may use these letters for no other substantive evidentiary

purpose in this litigation. Plaintiff must establish her case through evidentiary sources other than

her counsel’s statements, affidavit, declaration or testimony. Defendant’s use of these letters or

other such evidence is not limited. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied. 

2. Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff Wall’s deposition, and for sanctions,

filed October 19, 2007, is granted in part. Wall’s deposition shall be taken on November 29,

2007 at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Defendant’s motion for sanctions is denied. 

3. Filings relating to the instant motions filed after November 9, 2007, (docket

numbers 92, 93, 95, 96, 97), are stricken.

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 98 Filed 11/29/07 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

6

4. Plaintiff shall produce all overdue discovery responses by November 26, 2007,

at 12:00 p.m.

5. The parties shall produce all supplemental initial disclosures by November 26,

2007.

DATED: 11/29/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076:Cares2553.dep.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 98 Filed 11/29/07 Page 6 of 6