Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00506/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00506-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIEU THI TRUONG, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. 2:10-cv-00506 MCE KJN

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Presently before the court is defendants’ amended motion to compel Snowzene

Sharp, a nonparty witness subpoenaed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, to appear

and provide testimony at Ms. Sharp’s deposition in this case (Dkt. No. 33). The court heard this 1

matter on its law and motion calendar on May 10, 2012. Attorney Jeri L. Pappone appeared on

behalf of defendants. No appearance was made by or on behalf of plaintiffs. Although Ms.

Sharp did not file a written response to the motion, she appeared at the hearing and represented

herself.

At the hearing, Ms. Sharp agreed to have her deposition taken as soon as possible

rather than face possible contempt sanctions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e), despite her general

This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California 1

Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 36 Filed 05/11/12 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

preference not to participate in this case. Accordingly, the court denies the amended motion to

compel as moot, but orders Ms. Sharp to appear and provide testimony at her forthcoming

deposition. With Ms. Sharp’s and Ms. Pappone’s input, the court set the date and time of Ms.

Sharp’s deposition, which is stated below. The parties and Ms. Sharp may change the date, time,

or location of this deposition only if counsel for the parties and Ms. Sharp mutually agree to such

changes. As stated at the hearing, it is in the best interest of the parties not to change the date of

the deposition in light of past difficulties in attempting to secure Ms. Sharp’s testimony.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ amended motion to compel (Dkt. No. 33) is denied as moot.

2. Nonparty Snowzene Sharp shall appear at her deposition and provide

testimony on Monday, June 11, 2012, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

3. Ms. Sharp’s deposition shall take place at the offices of Longyear, O’Dea

& Lavra, LLP, located at 3620 American River Drive, Suite 230, Sacramento, California 95864.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed mail a copy of this order to Snowzene Sharp

at 4719 50th Avenue, Apartment 122, Sacramento, California 95823.

5. Defendants shall serve an amended notice of deposition and a copy of this

order on Ms. Sharp by Certified Mail.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 10, 2012

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 The court addresses one issue regarding the defendants’ use of the U.S. Postal Service’s

2

Certified Mail services. Although defendants represent in their moving papers that their process

server mailed the amended subpoena at issue to Ms. Sharp “via certified U.S. mail,” their process

server’s declaration indicates that the amended subpoena was mailed via regular mail with a

“certificate of mailing.” (Compare Defs.’ Memo. of P. & A. In Supp. of Mot. to Compel at 3, with

Bradshaw Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. B.) Defendants shall serve this order byCertified Mail, not simply regular

mail with a certificate of mailing. 

2

Case 2:10-cv-00506-ODW Document 36 Filed 05/11/12 Page 2 of 2