Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01682/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01682-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances underlying

the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BARBARA WOOD, the estate of EDNA

MURILLO, and RICHARD WOOD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VISTA MANOR NURSING CENTER

LIFE GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE,

INC., and ABIGAIL MOSS

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-01682-JW (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AS

MODIFIED BY THE COURT,

MOTION OF NON-PARTY PROJECT

SENTINEL FOR ISSUANCE OF

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs Barbara Wood, Richard Wood, and the estate of Edna Murillo (collectively,

“Plaintiffs”) allege that Vista Manor Nursing Center, Life Generations Healthcare, Inc., and

Abigail Moss (collectively, “Defendants”) discriminated against Murillo on the basis of her

disability by refusing her housing on account of her being HIV positive.1

 Project Sentinel was

originally a plaintiff in this action, but dismissed its claims and is no longer a party. 

The instant motion is the product of a dispute between Defendants’ counsel, Keith Fink,

and Project Sentinel’s counsel, Liza Cristol-Deman, which occurred during the deposition of a

Project Sentinel witnesses, Ann Marquart. On March 13, 2007, non-party Project Sentinel filed

a motion for issuance of protective order. Defendants filed their opposition on April 2, 2007. 

Project Sentinel filed their reply on April 10, 2007. 

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 53 Filed 04/20/07 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

 If Project Sentinel and Defendants do not agree to split the cost of the videographer, they

shall contact Chambers at (408) 535-5438 to make arrangements for any depositions to take

place in the courthouse. 

ORDER, page 2

For the following reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Project Sentinel’s Motion for

Issuance of Protective Order is Granted in Part as follows. 

Project Sentinel’s motion asks the court to issue an order requiring Defendants to pay for

a professional videographer to tape the depositions of Project Sentinels’ witnesses. In the

alternative, Project Sentinel asks the court to order Defendants to assign someone other than

Mr. Fink to take the depositions. Project Sentinel claims that Mr. Fink’s behavior toward Project

Sentinel’s witnesses and counsel during depositions was aggressive and unprofessional and

forced Ms. Cristol-Deman to terminate Ann Marquart’s deposition. 

In response, Defendants contend that Mr. Fink conducted himself with the utmost

professionalism and in a courteous manner throughout the course of taking depositions. 

Defendants claim that Ms. Cristol-Deman acted in an unprofessional manner by failing to meet

and confer during the deposition, making improper objections, and unjustifiably terminated the

Ms. Marquart’s deposition. 

The court has reviewed the moving papers and transcripts and it appears that Mr. Fink

could be more polite and Ms. Cristol-Deman could be more thick-skinned. Accordingly, there is

no good cause to bar Mr. Fink from participating in future depositions of Project Sentinel

witnesses or to require Defendants to assume the entire cost of hiring a videographer. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for all future depositions of Project Sentinel witnesses,

Defendants and Project Sentinel shall either agree to split the cost of hiring a videographer to

video tape the depositions OR the depositions of Project Sentinel witnesses shall take place at

the District Court in San Jose, CA.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01682-JW Document 53 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 2