Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07476/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07476-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD RANDOLPH, SR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-07476 SI

ORDER CONCERNING DEPOSITION

OF WITNESS “AB”

The Court is presently considering defendants’ pending “Motion in Limini to Preclude Plaintiff’s

Surprise Witnesses ‘AB’ and ‘Paris’ from Testifying at Trial As Rebuttal Witnesses.” Defendants

object strenuously to any testimony by either of these witnesses, whose identity and location were

disclosed by plaintiff only during trial. (Apparently the only witness now involved is “AB,” Anthony

Bradley.)

 The Court has not ruled on the motion. However, to reduce potential prejudice should the

witness be allowed to testify, the Court ordered that plaintiff make AB available for deposition or

interview, at defendants’ election, during the one-week hiatus in trial proceedings. Evidently the parties

are now arranging to take AB’s deposition.

This is a discovery deposition, not a deposition to preserve testimony for trial. This witness will

be allowed to testify, if at all, only live. The deposition was ordered to inform defense counsel of what

this witness may say, should he be called, and to allow them to prepare any cross-examination.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07476-SI Document 182 Filed 04/28/08 Page 1 of 1