Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01436/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01436-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZEALIN BARTEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VISALIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01436-JLT-SAB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY A CONTEMPT 

CITATION SHOULD NOT ISSUE; FOR AN 

ORDER COMPELLING ATTENDANCE AT 

DEPOSITION, AND FOR MONETARY 

SANCTION [FRCP RULE 37] AGAINST 

MARISSA URENA WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF Nos. 22, 23) 

On April 2, 2024, Defendants filed an ex parte application requesting that the Court issue 

an order to show cause directed to witness Marissa Urena why she should not be found in 

contempt of court for her disobedience and failure to comply with a subpoena dated February 26,

2024. (ECF No. 22.) Defendants request that the Court order Ms. Urena to attend a deposition 

and testify on April 15, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Visalia, California. (Id.) Defendants also request 

that the Court order Ms. Urena to show cause why she should not pay the sum of $2,883.75 as 

the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Defendants. (Id.) 

On April 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ ex parte application. 

(ECF No. 23.) Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ request, in part, because no exigency exists, and 

the instant motion could have been requested on the Court’s regular calendar. (Id. at 23.) The 

Court agrees and shall deny Defendants’ request as procedurally deficient without addressing the 

Case 1:22-cv-01436-JLT-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/03/24 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

substance of the ex parte application. 

This Court’s Standing Order issued to the parties on November 8, 2022, requires that the 

party filing the ex parte application “include an affidavit indicating a satisfactory explanation for 

the following: (1) the need for the issuance of such an order, (2) the inability of the filer to obtain 

a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in the action, and (3) 

why such request cannot be noticed on the court’s motion calendar as provided by Local Rule 

230.” (ECF No. 4-1 at 3.) Neither the application nor the Declaration of Caren L. Curtiss 

attached to Defendants’ ex parte application sufficiently addresses any of these issues.1 

Plaintiffs proffer in their opposition that Defendants failed to meet and confer to resolve the need 

for this Court to issue an order in ex parte fashion, including a failure to seek a modification of 

the scheduling order to allow for additional time to take Ms. Urena’s deposition. (ECF No. 23 at 

2.) 

The Court acknowledges Defendants’ concerns regarding the approaching non-expert 

discovery deadline on April 19, 2024 and notes a properly filed application to shorten time 

accompanying a properly filed motion would be entertained by the Court, if necessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ ex parte application for order 

to show cause why a contempt citation should not issue; for an order compelling attendance at 

deposition; and for monetary sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 against 

Marissa Urena (ECF No. 22) is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The Court notes Defendants describe their meet and confer efforts with Ms. Urena; however, she is neither “other 

counsel” nor a “part[y] in the action.” (ECF No. 4-1 at 3.)

Case 1:22-cv-01436-JLT-SAB Document 24 Filed 04/03/24 Page 2 of 2