Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02893/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02893-4/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 1

 The letter briefs are found at Docket Nos. 286 and 287.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES H. WITTMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RITA SAENZ, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 02-2893 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

By letter briefs, the parties seek resolution of a dispute concerning plaintiff’s refusal to answer

certain questions during his deposition.1 Plaintiff was asked whether he owned pornography at the time

Ms. Tucker’s children lived at plaintiff’s house in 1999, and plaintiff refused to answer on privacy

grounds. Plaintiff answered “yes,” when asked, “Are you aware that Daniel told his social worker that

he viewed pornography in your home?” 

The Court concludes that if the County social workers determined that plaintiff posed a risk to

Ms. Tucker’s children because, inter alia, the children viewed pornography while living at plaintiff’s

house, then whether plaintiff possessed pornography accessible to the children is relevant. Accordingly,

defendants are entitled to explore whether plaintiff possessed pornography accessible to Ms. Tucker’s

children, and plaintiff is ordered to answer such questions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02893-SI Document 290 Filed 08/07/06 Page 1 of 1