Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04311/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04311-2/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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

E-Filed 4/29/16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERTO LAINEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SALINAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04311-EJD (HRL)

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT 1

Re: Dkt. No. 36

Plaintiffs Alberto Lainez and Lidia Guardado Mejia (“Plaintiffs”) claim in this wrongfuldeath case that members of the Salinas Police Department unlawfully shot and killed their son. 

Defendants Kelly McMillin, Derek Gibson, George Lauricella, and the City of Salinas

(“Defendants”) answer that any force the police used was “reasonable and necessary under the 

circumstances[.]” Dkt. No. 8 at 10.

The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs should be deposed in the Northern District of 

California. Plaintiffs assert they cannot legally attend depositions in the United States because 

they lack, and cannot feasibly obtain, temporary visas that would authorize them to travel. 

Defendants respond: (1) it is presumptively proper to require a plaintiff to appear for a deposition

in the district where the plaintiff filed suit; (2) remote depositions would be ineffective and would 

allow opposing counsel to coach Plaintiffs; (3) traveling to El Salvador for face-to-face 

depositions would be too dangerous for Defendants’ counsel; and (4) Plaintiffs could strengthen 

future visa applications with the aid of the court.

The parties were unable to resolve their dispute; they therefore sought judicial intervention 

by filing Discovery Dispute Joint Report 1. Dkt. No. 36. 

Discussion

Plaintiffs ask the court to order that their “[d]epositions be taken via videoconference . . . 

Case 5:14-cv-04311-EJD Document 51 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and that this video testimony can be used at trial.” Dkt. No. 36 at 6. Defendants ask this court to 

instead “test[]” a “process” which might result in the issuance of visas: (1) the court would order 

that Plaintiffs’ case shall be dismissed if they receive visas and then fail to return to El Salvador in 

accord with the terms of those visas; (2) Plaintiffs would then apply for visas with the court’s 

order proffered to support their applications; and (3) Plaintiffs’ counsel would also post a 

monetary bond that would be forfeit if Plaintiffs failed to comply with the terms of the visas. Dkt. 

No. 36 at 8-9.

The parties agree it is presumptively proper to require a plaintiff to attend a noticed 

deposition in the forum where he has filed suit. See 8A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2112 (3d ed.). 

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not justified a departure from this presumption because mere 

“inconvenience or expense” is not a “legitimate” justification. Dkt. No. 36 at 7 (quoting United 

States v. Rock Springs Vista Dev., 185 F.R.D. 603, 604 (D. Nev. 1999)). Plaintiffs respond that 

the “impossibility” of obtaining visas provides a legitimate justification that goes beyond mere 

inconvenience or expense—Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that visa applicants must show they can

afford the costs of their intended journeys, but that her clients are too impoverished to prove they 

could afford to travel to and from depositions in the United States. Dkt. No. 36 at 3-5.

The undersigned is not convinced that it would be impossible for Plaintiffs to obtain visas

for the purpose of participating in this case. Defendants raise a fair point: if future visa 

applications would probably be denied due to Plaintiffs’ inability to afford the costs of travel, and 

given that Plaintiffs’ counsel have previously expressed a willingness to pay “the cost of all 

counsel traveling to El Salvador” for the depositions, then why have Plaintiffs’ counsel not 

attempted to support new visa applications with, for instance, a declaration that states they would 

pay the travel costs of their clients? Dkt. No. 36 at 9.

The information before the court nevertheless persuades the undersigned that Plaintiffs 

currently lack visas and that one of Plaintiffs applied fairly recently for a visa, but the application

was denied. The undersigned is therefore satisfied that Plaintiffs have shown a legitimate 

justification, beyond mere inconvenience or expense, for the court to excuse Plaintiffs from 

attending depositions in this district—Plaintiffs could not legally attend any such depositions at 

Case 5:14-cv-04311-EJD Document 51 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

this time and it is plausible, if not certain, that future visa applications would be rejected.

Defendants also argue Plaintiffs have “the burden of showing that foreign law prohibits 

their compliance with the Federal Rules[.]” Dkt. No. 36 at 8 (citing St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. v. 

Janssen-Counotte, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1150, 1151 (D. Or. 2015)). Defendants misread the opinion

they rely upon for this proposition. That opinion ruled that foreign law may sometimes justify

failure to comply with a discovery order if the person who failed to comply with the order shows

that a foreign law “prohibits” the ordered “disclosure[.]” Janssen-Counotte, 104 F. Supp. 3d at 

1154. The question before this court is not whether to enforce a violated discovery order;

Defendants’ citation is not pertinent here.

The undersigned is also not persuaded by either the argument that remote depositions

would be ineffective or the argument that remote depositions might lead to gamesmanship. Dkt. 

No. 36 at 8-9. The undersigned appreciates the comparative advantages of face-to-face 

depositions—a better opportunity to evaluate non-verbal reactions, for example—but this court 

has repeatedly recognized that videoconference depositions nevertheless “tend to be effective and 

efficient[.]” E.g., Lopez v. CIT Bank, N.A., 15-cv-00759-BLF-HRL, 2015 WL 10374104, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015) (collecting cases). This court therefore has a policy of “liberally”

granting leave to hold remote depositions. Id. Plaintiffs presently lack necessary visas and one of 

them had a visa application denied relatively recently. Dkt. No. 36 at 2-3. Plaintiffs also assert 

their lawyer would be “in frame” during any videoconference depositions so that Defendants’

lawyer can verify no “coaching” occurs. Dkt. No. 36 at 6. The undersigned therefore rejects 

Defendants’ concerns about coaching as speculative and finds good cause to permit the remote 

depositions of Plaintiffs. If Defendants remain deeply concerned about the possible

ineffectiveness of remote depositions and the possibility of gamesmanship, then they retain both 

the option of sending a lawyer into El Salvador and the option of hiring local counsel.

It would be procedurally improper, however, for the undersigned to rule in the context of a 

discovery dispute on whether evidence may be used at trial. The undersigned therefore rejects 

Plaintiffs’ request for a ruling on whether Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony would be usable at trial

in lieu of live testimony.

Case 5:14-cv-04311-EJD Document 51 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

Conclusion

Plaintiffs have shown good cause to justify the taking of Plaintiffs’ depositions by

videoconference. Defendants may elect instead to take in-person depositions within El Salvador, 

but the court will not require Plaintiffs to attend noticed depositions in this district. The 

undersigned encourages the parties to stipulate promptly to the issuance of proposed letters 

rogatory under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b) if any such letters will be necessary. It 

would be procedurally improper for the court to rule at this time on whether Plaintiffs’ deposition 

testimony would be usable at trial in lieu of live testimony.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/29/16

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04311-EJD Document 51 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 4