Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574-10/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

JOHN TENNISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-0574 CW (EMC)

ORDER RE JOINT LETTER OF JULY

14, 2005

(Docket No. 316)

Plaintiff John Tennison and Defendants Earl Sanders and Napoleon Hendrix filed a joint

letter on July 14, 2005, regarding a discovery dispute over the depositions of the latter individuals. It

appears that Mr. Tennison initially deposed Officer Hendrix in January 2005 and Officer Sanders in

March 2005. The parties have agreed that both officers may be redeposed so that Mr. Tennison may

question them about certain documents produced by Defendant the City and County of San Francisco

in June 2005. The parties disagree, however, whether Mr. Tennison should be given additional time

(90 minutes total) to ask the officers about additional documents produced by the City in June 2005. 

Although it is not entirely clear from the joint letter, it appears that the additional documents consist

of, e.g., documents showing that the officers requested reward money in other cases and documents

indicating that the inspectors supplied financial benefits to witnesses. See Joint letter of 7/14/05,

Exs. 2-3. 

Having considered the arguments made in the joint letter and the exhibits attached thereto,

the Court hereby GRANTS Mr. Tennison’s request to depose Officer Sanders and Officer Hendrix

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 318 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

regarding the additional documents for a total of 90 minutes. Even if the documents were produced

by the City as part of “Monell discovery,” the documents are relevant to Mr. Tennison’s claims

against the officers themselves. For example, the documents tend to support Mr. Tennison’s claim

that the officers did pay a witness to testify in his criminal case (i.e., it was a practice for the officers

to pay witnesses to testify). Also, the documents tend to impeach the prior testimony of Officer

Hendrix. See Joint letter of 7/14/05, Ex. 1 (deposition of Officer Sanders, taken in 12/01 as part of

federal habeas case). The benefit of allowing Mr. Tennison to depose the officers about these

relevant documents (for only a total of 90 minutes) outweighs the burden on the officers as they are

already being re-deposed about other documents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B) (providing that a

party must obtain leave of court, “which shall be granted consistent with the principles stated in Rule

26(b)(2)” if “the person to be examined already has been deposed in the case”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2) (noting that whether discovery is permitted depends on, inter alia, whether the burden of

the discovery outweighs its likely benefit).

The Court notes that this order does not permit Mr. Tennison to depose Officer Sanders and

Officer Hendrix on all of the documents produced by the City as part of Monell discovery. See Joint

letter of 7/14/05 (officers arguing that “Plaintiffs do not limit themselves to topics, but instead want

to depose Hendrix and Sanders regarding all of the Monell discovery they obtained from the City”) 

Rather, the only documents that are at issue are those described above -- i.e., documents produced by

the City in June 2005. See Joint letter of 7/14/05, Exs. 2-3.

This order disposes of Docket No. 316.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: July 15, 2005

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 318 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2