Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00687/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00687-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVETT FOBBS, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

RELATED ACTIONS:

ANGELIQUE PAIGE, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

ALVETT FOBBS, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C09-2723 (PJH) JCS

DISCOVERY ORDER

Case No. C09-0687 PJH (JCS)

Case No. C10-1065 PJH (JCS)

Case 4:09-cv-00687-PJH Document 62 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 5
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

2

On June 4, 2010, at further discovery conference was held. Counsel for all parties in these

related actions appeared, along with counsel for Intervenor. The parties also held a meet-and-confer

regarding the Joint Coordination of Depositions Among the Three Related Cases.

For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, and good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. On or before June 9, 2010, all parties in these related actions shall meet and confer

and submit to the court a proposed protective order, using the standard form of

protective order on the Court’s website (the “Protective Order”);

2. By agreement of the parties, any deposition taken in any of these related cases may be

used in all of these related cases as if it was taken in all of the cases;

3. By agreement of the parties, in any deposition in these cases, where the witness has

previously been deposed in one of these related cases, no questions may be asked if

they had been asked of the witness in the prior deposition;

4. By agreement of the parties, all documents produced in any of these cases shall be

produced to all counsel in all of these related cases;

5. With respect to the depositions of the named plaintiffs, or absent class members, in

C09-2723 (“Fobbs I”), the following rules shall apply until the motion for class

certification is decided, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties or ordered by the

Court:

A. In Fobbs I, defendants may take the deposition (before the close of class

discovery) of any named plaintiff, and of any absent class members for whom

plaintiffs’ counsel (1) have previously submitted a declaration in this case, or

(2) intends to submit a declaration in connection with the motion for class

certification. Plaintiffs’ counsel has provided a list of absent class members

that may submit declarations. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide full contact

information for these witnesses to defense counsel forthwith, and shall

cooperate in securing the deposition of these absent class members. 

Case 4:09-cv-00687-PJH Document 62 Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 5
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

3

Defendants may take the deposition of any of the absent class members on the

list, except for those with respect to whom plaintiffs’ counsel has notified

defendants’ counsel that they do not intend to submit a declaration from that

particular witness. If, after defendants have made good faith efforts to depose

a listed absent class member, the class member either cannot be served with

process or fails to appear for deposition, then no declaration of that class

member may be submitted by plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with the class

certification motion.

B. No questions shall be asked regarding damages, or regarding the witnesses’

school record (the “excluded subjects”); and

C. Depositions shall be noticed in all of the related actions. However, any 

counsel in C09-687 (“Paige”) has the option of attending if these depositions

are noticed in one of the other two related cases. In that event, if any counsel

in Paige attends the deposition, then such counsel may ask questions of the

witness, and may not redepose the witness except on the excluded subjects. If

any counsel in Paige does not attend one of these depositions, then that

counsel may redepose such witness even on the subjects covered at the first

deposition, provided that they comply with paragraph 3 above;

6. Plaintiffs’ counsel in Fobbs I shall notice the deposition, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(b)(6), of a witness or witnesses concerning the relevant policies of defendant City

of Union City. This deposition shall be noticed in all 3 actions and may only be taken

once;

7. In C10-1075 (“Fobbs II”), all parties shall provide Initial Disclosures pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26, on or before June 18, 2010;

8. In Fobbs I, in response to Document Requests Nos. 5 and 6, defendants shall provide

all responsive police reports for past 5 years. These reports have been produce and

four of the incidents reflected thereon have been selected for sampling by counsel for

plaintiffs (the “sample incidents”). On or before June 11, 2010, Defendants shall 

Case 4:09-cv-00687-PJH Document 62 Filed 06/07/10 Page 3 of 5
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

4

produce all of the following for the sample incidents:

A. Under the Protective Order, on an Attorney’s Eyes Only basis, all documents

that refer or relate to the incidents, other than privileged documents; and

B. A privilege log reflecting all privileged documents withheld by defendants, or

under a privilege asserted by Intervenor Department of Justice. No document

shall be withheld on the basis of privacy, privacy of personnel files, privacy of

peace officer personnel files, or any similar such privacy privilege, as these

document will be produced on and Attorney’s Eyes Only basis;

9. On or before June 14, 2010, lead trial counsel for all parties and the Department of

Justice shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve all other current disputes

regarding the production of documents, interrogatory responses, and responses to

requests for admission. If any issues remain, the parties shall prepare and file, on or

before June 14, 2010, a joint letter. The joint letter shall set forth in detail, separately

for each particular discovery request in dispute, each party’s position and the

complete basis for that position, and each party’s proposed compromise. The joint

letter will be addressed at the next Discovery Conference.

10. The parties shall meet and confer on coordinating discovery so that police officer

witnesses and school district witnesses may only be deposed once.

11. A further Discovery Conference in these related cases is scheduled for June 18, 2010,

at 9:30 a.m. An updated joint Discovery Conference Statement shall be filed and

submitted in hard copy to chambers not later than 9:30 a.m. on June 16, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2010

__________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:09-cv-00687-PJH Document 62 Filed 06/07/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case 4:09-cv-00687-PJH Document 62 Filed 06/07/10 Page 5 of 5