Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00072/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00072-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MADDOX, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-06-0072 GEB EFB

vs.

COUNT OF SACRAMENTO, et al., ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

This case was before the undersigned on September 5, 2007, for hearing on plaintiffs’

motion to compel additional deposition testimony from non-party witness, Warren Weikel. 

Anthony James Palik appeared as plaintiffs’ counsel and John A. Lavra appeared as defense

counsel. Having considered the parties’ joint statement and heard oral argument, the court issues

the following order.

For the reasons set forth during the hearing, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion to compel

additional deposition testimony from deponent Warren Weikel. The parties shall designate a

mutually agreeable time to reconvene Mr. Weikel’s deposition, during which he is compelled to

answer the questions set forth in the joint statement. Further, the court construes plaintiffs’

request for production of documents set forth in the June 15, 2007, letter to defense counsel as a

formal discovery request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, directed toward defendant, County of

Case 2:06-cv-00072-GEB-EFB Document 69 Filed 09/06/07 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

2

Sacramento, to the extent the County has custody of the requested documents. See Exhibit H to

Declaration of Anthony J. Palik in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion. Defendants shall have thirty

days from the date of service of this order to produce those documents. If defendants believe

that a responsive document is privileged, they shall provide a privilege log in compliance with

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). 

Finally, as discussed at the hearing, to the extent the parties wish to prepare and submit

for the court’s approval a proposed stipulated protective order governing the use of Mr. Weikel’s

deposition testimony, they may do so. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 6, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00072-GEB-EFB Document 69 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 2