Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01406/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01406-5/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 08cv1406

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUATAY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, Civil No. 08cv1406-JM (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITIONS OF

EKARD AND WALLAR

[Doc. No. 59]

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 

Defendant

Before the Court is plaintiff Guatay Christian Fellowship’s (“Guatay”) Motion to Compel the

Depositions Walter F. Ekard and Chandra L. Wallar. [Doc. No. 59.] Defendant County of San Diego

(“County”) filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 62.] The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on

the papers submitted and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

On June 1, 2009, Guatay served notices on the County for the depositions of Ekard and Wallar 

for June 15, 2009. Each notice includes a demand for the production of documents. The County

objected and refused to produce Ekard and Wallar contending they have no personal knowledge relevant

to the claims and defenses of this litigation.

As an initial matter, the notices for the depositions of Ekard and Wallar are improper. Although

the 14 days notice given for the depositions of these individuals may be reasonable notice for a

deposition under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(1), when the notice joins a request for the production of documents,

Case 3:08-cv-01406-JM-BLM Document 68 Filed 07/10/09 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 The requests, in part, seek documents from 2008, so there is no excuse that these requests could 1

not have been served timely. 

2 08cv1406

as these notices do, the procedures for Fed.R.Civ.P. 34 apply and a minimum of 30 days’ notice is

required. The plaintiff cannot avoid the requirements of Rule 34 by incorporating a document request

into a deposition notice. Further, the Scheduling Order in this case [Doc. No. 41] set the close of

discovery for June 15, 2009, so the last day to timely serve document requests was May 15, 2009. 

Guatay could not serve these document requests without leave of Court, which it did not seek prior to

incorporating the requests into the deposition notices. The notices are defective and therefore the 1

depositions as noticed cannot be compelled. 

Further, the County objects to the depositions of these individuals on the basis that they have no

knowledge relevant to this litigation. It is undisputed that these individuals had no participation in the

issuance of the Notice of Violation against plaintiff that is at-issue in this case. Guatay has not

represented that Ekard or Wallar were involved in that process in any manner. Guatay seeks their

depositions because of their recent involvement in the issuance of an Administrative Citation Warning

against an unrelated home bible study group. The warning was rescinded by Ekard with an apology that

included the statement that the “Code Enforcement Officer incorrectly made the finding in no small

measure on unclear language in the zoning ordinance.” [Doc. No. 59 at 4.] Wallar was quoted regarding

the incident stating that there may be a need to clarify when a religious gathering becomes an assembly

under the code. [Id.]

Guatay argues it is entitled to the depositions of these individuals regarding the interpretation and

application of the ordinance and the issuance of cease and desist orders to religious assemblies because

the circumstances involving the citation to this third party demonstrate that the ordinance is

unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. [Id. at 5.] The County argues that since these individuals had

nothing to do with the Notice of Violation issued to plaintiff, they have no information relevant to the

claims and defenses of this case. They have no personal knowledge of the circumstances regarding

plaintiff’s complaint. Further, there is no argument raised in plaintiff’s complaint that the County’s

ordinance requiring a Major Use permit for religious assemblies is unconstitutionally vague and

Case 3:08-cv-01406-JM-BLM Document 68 Filed 07/10/09 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

Since the motion is denied on procedural grounds as well as the defendant’s relevance objection, 2

the Court does not reach defendant’s argument that these individuals should be excused from deposition

because they are “high-ranking government officials.” [Doc. No. 62 at 9-10.]

3 08cv1406

ambiguous or that the plaintiff was not a religious assembly as defined by the Ordinance. The County’s

objection is sustained.2

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Depositions of Walter Ekard and Chandra Wallar is DENIED.

DATED: July 10, 2009

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01406-JM-BLM Document 68 Filed 07/10/09 Page 3 of 3