Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946-11/pdf.json

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

---

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

 Based on the Amended Complaint recently filed by the Padgetts, named defendants are:

The City of Monte Sereno, Brian Loventhal, Erin Garner, A. Curtis Wright, Mark Brodsky, Barbara

Nesbet, David Baxter, and Lisa Rice (collectively, "defendants").

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-FILED 2/24/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH PADGETT AND DARLA

PADGETT,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF MONTE SERENO, ET AL.,

Defendants. /

NO. 04-cv-3946 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO

COMPEL FURTHER

DISCOVERY RESPONSES

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Joseph Padgett and Darla Padgett ("Padgetts"), former residents of the City of

Monte Sereno (the "City"), seek damages for the alleged violation of their civil rights at the hands of

the City and its officials. They move to compel defendants1 to provide further responses to various

discovery requests and deposition questions, as well as request that newly-added defendant Lisa

Rice ("Rice") be ordered to submit additional finger and palm prints for testing. Although defendant

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 14
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

 The record indicates that Rice was served with the Amended Complaint on February 6,

2006.

2

Rice has not yet appeared in the action2

, the remaining defendants state that they have responded

appropriately to all discovery requests and that, as a result, they can provide no further information.

The motions were fully briefed and heard on shortened time by the Court on February 22, 2006. 

Based on all papers filed to date, as well as on the oral argument of counsel, the Court grants in part

and denies in part the motions to compel, as explained below.

II. BACKGROUND

The parties' present dispute concerns requests for the production of documents served by the

Padgetts, their request to inspect the City's computers, and defendants' refusal to answer certain

deposition questions. Specifically, the Padgetts request that defendants be ordered to provide

additional discovery responses to request for production of documents, numbers 7, 11, 12, 13, 14,

16, 17, and 18, as well as to their first and second demands for inspection. The Padgetts also move

to compel further deposition answers regarding numerous questions posed to defendants Rice and A.

Curtis Wright ("Wright"), as well as to non-party Scott Seaman ("Seaman"). In addition, they

request that Rice be ordered to provide another copy of her palm and finger prints for analysis by an

expert retained by plaintiffs.

With the exception of the request that Rice provide prints, defendants oppose the motions,

arguing that they have provided all responsive discovery in their possession and have answered all

deposition questions, except to the extent that proper objections or instructions not to answer were

interposed.

III. STANDARDS

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)(1),

 [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, 

that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party...For good cause, 

the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter 

involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the 

trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence.

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 2 of 14
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

Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence

to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the

evidence." Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 401. Discovery may be limited by the court for good

cause shown "to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

burden or expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c)).

Discovery requests for documents and tangible things are governed by Rule 34 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule in relevant part states that, 

Any party may serve on any other party a request to produce and permit the party

making the request, or someone acting on the requestor's behalf, to inspect and copy,

any designated documents (including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs,

phonorecords, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained,

translated, if necessary, by the respondent through detection devices into reasonably

usable form), or to inspect and copy, test, or sample any tangible things which

constitute or contain matters within the scope of and which are in the possession,

custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). 

Motions to compel are authorized by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

[If] a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a

party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails

to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit

inspection as requested, the discovering party may move for an order

compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in

accordance with the request. The motion must include a certification that

the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the

person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the

information or material without court action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel Rice to Submit Additional Finger and Palm Prints

The Court addressed the production of finger and palm prints in a prior motion filed by the

Padgetts, who moved for the production of prints from several City officials including then nonparty Rice. In its order granting in part and denying in part the Padgetts' request, the Court found, in

light of Rice's confession that she wrote the threatening letter to the Padgetts, good cause existed to

compel her to produce finger and palm prints. Nonetheless, the Court noted that since the Padgetts

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 3 of 14
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

had not served a Rule 45 subpoena on Rice to request her prints, their motion to compel was

premature and, therefore, would be denied without prejudice.

The record indicates that, prior to the Court's order, Rice expressed her willingness to

provide her prints to the parties and, in fact, those prints were taken by an expert retained by the City

on July 22, 2006. The Padgetts' expert did not attend that print session, however, since it was

unilaterally scheduled by the defendants and occurred prior to the issuance of the Court's order

concerning the production of Rice's prints. See Reedy Declaration at ¶¶ 4-6. Nonetheless, the prints

taken by the City's expert were provided to the Padgetts' expert, who has reviewed and analyzed the

results. See Exh. E to Master Declaration.

Despite having a copy of the finger and palm prints of Rice taken by the defense, the

Padgetts move to compel Rice to provide an additional set of prints to plaintiffs' expert, arguing that

until their "expert is allowed to take the prints using her own methodology, which includes taking

photographs and establishing personal identification of the individual providing the prints, we

cannot know whether Rice's prints are a match to the prints on the threatening letter." See Reedy

Declaration at p. 3, ¶9, lines 25-28. This argument does not appear in the Padgetts' expert's

declaration, however, which in fact concludes, based on a preliminary analysis, that the palm prints

provided and identified as those belonging to Rice match the latent prints found on the threatening

letter received by the Padgetts. Exh. E at ¶ 16, lines 9-10. Although the expert goes on to state that

she needs to complete her latent print analysis before reaching a final conclusion, she does not

identify any problems with the prints previously provided by Rice, nor does she question their

authenticity in any manner. As a result, it is unclear why the Padgetts need Rice to provide an

additional set of prints.

At the hearing on the motion, defense counsel agreed to provide the Padgetts with

certification that their expert verified the identity of Rice at the time her prints were obtained. Those

original prints remain in the custody of defendants' expert and will be made available to the Padgetts'

expert for her review and inspection. Based on these assurances by defense counsel, the motion to

compel another set of palm and finger prints from Rice is denied. 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 4 of 14
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

B. Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Permit Inspection

The Padgetts also move to compel defendants to provide additional responses to requests for

production numbers 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18, as well as to permit inspection of defendants'

computers and related storage systems in response to their first and second demands for inspection.

Defendants state that all responsive documents have been produced, with the exception of those

withheld on the basis of privilege, and that a privilege log has been provided to the Padgetts which

identifies those documents withheld. In the event that additional documents to which the defendants

claim a privilege must be provided to the Padgetts, defendants request that the Court first conduct an

in camera review of such materials to assess their relevancy.

1. Document Request No. 7

The Padgetts request production of all documents regarding Rice's employment with the City

of Monte Sereno, including those related to her termination. Although defendants provided a copy of

the statement that Rice delivered to the City after her employment was terminated in June 2005, they

object to the production of any additional materials, including the personnel file of Rice, arguing that

the request is overbroad in that it seeks all documents concerning Rice's four year employment

history with the City, whether or not such documents are related to this action. Moreover, defendants

claim that the personnel file is protected by the official information privilege recognized by the

federal courts, and by the right to privacy under California law.

As an initial matter, the discovery request is impermissibly overbroad as it requires

defendants to produce anything written by or about Rice during the four (4) years she was employed

by the City, without limitation. That said, any document pertaining to Rice's termination, which

resulted from her admitted authorship of the threatening letter sent to the Padgetts, would be relevant

and subject to production. Similarly, any other documents contained in Rice's personnel file that 

refer to or mention the Padgetts may be relevant to the issues presented in this litigation. Finally, any

documents related to any disciplinary action against Rice that may have occurred during her tenure

with the City, as well as any materials related to her mental health issues or concerns, may be

implicated in the claims and defenses presented in this action and should be produced. 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 5 of 14
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 6

To the extent that defendants invoke the official information privilege as to these materials,

they have waived that protection by failing to assert the privilege in a timely and proper manner.

While information contained in government personnel files may be considered "official information"

and may, therefore, be protected by the official information privilege, Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana,

936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990), the privilege is qualified, and does not provide an absolute bar

to disclosure. Miller v. Panucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 299 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (holding personnel files

sought to be discovered in an action alleging excessive force by police officers protected only by the

qualified "official information" privilege). In order to determine whether the privilege bars

disclosure, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the potential disadvantages. 

Miller, 141 F.R.D. at 299. 

At the outset, however, before the Court applies any balancing test to determine the

discoverability of government information, a party seeking to invoke the "official information"

privilege must satisfy two requirements. Id. First, the party who receives a discovery request must

timely serve and file an objection that invokes the official information privilege by name. Id.

Second, at the time it serves and files its response to the discovery request, the party must also

submit a declaration or affidavit, under oath or subject to the penalty of perjury, from the head of the

department which has control over the matter, setting forth specific facts regarding the risk of harm

which would occur were the material to be disclosed. Id. "Only after the party asserting the

privilege has satisfied these criteria, and in the absence of an agreement, should the parties resort to

the Court for resolution." Id. at 301. If the threshold requirements are not met, the privilege

assertion must be overruled in its entirety and complete disclosure will be ordered. Id.

In this instance, defendants failed to submit the requisite declaration or affidavit necessary to

invoke the official information privilege. Although they objected in their response that the requested

materials were protected by the privilege, no declaration or affidavit from the head of the department

which has control over the matter accompanied defendants' objection, as required by the Ninth

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 6 of 14
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

 The requisite declaration was apparently provided to the Padgetts some months after

defendants' response was filed.

4

 The California right of privacy is instructive but not binding on federal courts.

7

Circuit.3

 See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern District, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir.

1975); Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 656 (N.D. Cal. 1987). As a result, defendants'

"official information privilege" objection is overruled.

Defendants also contend that the relevant materials contained in Rice's personnel file are

protected by the right of privacy. Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601 (C.D. Cal.

1995). In California, the right of privacy is set forth in the state Constitution, Article I, Section I. It is

not, however, an absolute right and may be overcome depending upon the circumstances. Id. at 604.

4

 While sexual, health, and financial matters are generally considered to be private or confidential,

the importance of the information to a plaintiff's claims may outweigh any privacy interest a

defendant may have. Id. at 604-605. In this instance, since the materials identified by the Court are

directly relevant to the claims and defenses presented, are not available from another source, and

only marginally concern health information, defendants must provide those portions of Rice's

personnel file to the Padgetts. In all other respects, document request number seven is overbroad and

defendants will not be compelled to provide the remainder of Rice's personnel file, nor any other

documents concerning her four year employment history with the City beyond those addressed

above.

2. Document Request No. 11

The Padgetts also request that defendants provide all communications to or from Rice

regarding them. While defendants apparently produced some responsive documents, they claim that

others are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Despite this assertion, however, only one

document was listed on defendants' privilege log. Defendants are ordered to confirm that they have

produced all documents responsive to this request and to list any documents withheld on the basis of

privilege on the log provided to the Padgetts. 

In addition, based on the joint request of the parties and good cause appearing therefore, the

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 7 of 14
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 8

Court will conduct an in camera review of the document identified on defendants' existing privilege

log. Defendants shall submit that document in a sealed envelope to the Court within ten (10) days of

the date of this order.

3. Document Request Nos. 12 and 13

The Padgetts seek all communications to or from Rice regarding defendant Brian Loventhal,

or exchanged between Rice and Loventhal. Again, since Rice was employed for four years by the

City, these requests are impermissibly overbroad and not limited in any manner, such as time or

scope, to the claims and defenses presented in this action. In their motion to compel, however, the

Padgetts state that they are seeking communications between Rice and Loventhal related to the

claims and defenses which are presented in this action. Defense counsel acknowledged at the

hearing that documents related to the Padgetts are relevant to this case, but believes that those

documents have been provided. To the extent that any additional responsive documents exist,

defendants shall provide them to the Padgetts. 

4. Document Request Nos. 14 and 16

Similar to the prior requests, the Padgetts ask defendants to provide all communications

between Rice and the City Attorneys office, the City, or any official, agent, employee or other

person acting on the City's behalf. Defendants contend that they provided all non-privileged

materials, but it is unclear whether additional documents have been withheld on the basis of

privilege since only one document is listed on the privilege log. Accordingly, defendants shall

provide all responsive materials to the Padgetts, including a privilege log listing all documents

withheld on the basis of privilege. 

5. Document Request Nos. 17 and 18

The Padgetts request all communications to and from Rice regarding the threatening letter

sent to their home in March 2004, as well as any newspaper articles retrieved by defendants

regarding the Padgetts. Defendants assert that they have searched diligently and produced all

responsive materials. Nonetheless, the Padgetts state that they "believe additional responsive

documents exist." Without more than the Padgetts' "belief," however, the defendants cannot be

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 8 of 14
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 9

compelled to produce that which they state they do not have, unless a search of their computers is

conducted, as discussed below. The motion to compel further responses to these discovery requests

is, therefore, denied. 

6. Demand for Inspection

The Padgetts demand that a computer technician be allowed to inspect and test the City's

computer systems, as well as all servers, disks, back-up tapes, and any other form of storage used by

the City to save electronic data, arguing that the "evidence indicates that electronic records exist that

have not yet been produced, including but not limited to the threatening letter and envelope prepared

by Rice, the newspaper articles Loventhal downloaded to his computer, and the e-mail with the

confessional letter sent by Rice to the City Attorney." While Rice has stated that she did not save the

threatening letter, the Padgetts contend that a trained computer technician may be able to find a copy

of the letter on the computer's hard drive, whether or not the document was saved. They argue that it

is critical for them to confirm if Rice actually authored the letter since that information will establish

whether Rice acted on her own without the City's authority or ratification, as defendants assert.

As with several of the discovery requests noted above, the Padgetts' demand for inspection is

overly broad, invasive, and may impinge on privileged and confidential information. Moreover, the

Padgetts fail to state how their requested inspection can be tailored to the claims and defenses in this

action, or is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rather, they propose simply to

search all of defendants' databases in the hopes of locating information concerning the threatening

letter to the Padgetts, as well as computer data regarding downloading of newspaper articles

concerning the Padgetts.

As a result, and as discussed with counsel at the hearing, the Court will not entertain this

motion without a declaration from the Padgetts' computer expert, outlining the precise method and

scope by which he or she proposes to search the defendants' electronic storage systems and

databases. That declaration shall be filed on or before March 1, 2006. Upon the filing of that

declaration, counsel are ordered to meet and confer and attempt, in good faith, to reach an agreement

concerning the search of defendants' computers. In the event an agreement cannot be reached,

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 9 of 14
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

 The Padgetts again argue that defendants may not invoke the attorney-client privilege since

the Los Gatos Police Department is not a "client" of the Monte Sereno City Attorney's Office. The

Court previously rejected this argument, however, noting that the 1995 Agreement for Law

Enforcement Services between the Town of Los Gatos and the City states that the City pays the

Town for police services and the Town's Chief of Police is the City's Chief of Police. See Order

Denying Defendants' Motion for Protective Order, filed December 21, 2005 at p. 5. Moreover, the

City Attorney represented the City in its civil code enforcement action against the Padgetts in state

court.

10

defendants shall submit their objections to the proposed computer search on or before March 8,

2006. Upon the submission of defendants' objections, the matter shall be deemed submitted and the

Court will issue a ruling concerning the Padgetts' motion to inspect defendants' computers.

 C. Motions to Compel Further Deposition Answers

1. Wright and Seaman Deposition Questions

A review of the pertinent portions of the deposition transcripts submitted indicates that

Wright and Seaman were improperly instructed on grounds of attorney-client privilege not to answer

certain questions.5 In order for a communication to be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the

conversation must occur between a client and his or her attorney and must concern predominantly

legal advice, as opposed to ordinary business advice. North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, 274 F.

Supp.2d 1118, 1127 (N.D. Cal. 2003). The questions posed by the Padgetts to Wright and Seaman

do not appear to call for privileged information since they seek details which do not involve legal

advice, such as matters regarding service of process and newspaper articles received by Wright from

Loventhal.

Moreover, although the Court previously held that the City had waived the attorney-client

privilege with respect to the handwritten notes taken by Seaman and produced by the City, the Court

did not find that such waiver extended to all conversations between Seaman and the City Attorney,

which may otherwise be privileged. Nonetheless, with respect to the specific question posed by the

Padgetts to Seaman during his deposition regarding the conversation reflected in Seaman's notes, the

objection based on privilege is overruled since counsel specifically stated that he was not seeking to

elicit the substance of the conversation between Seaman and the City Attorney but only sought the

purpose for which the conversation took place. See Deposition Transcript at p. 66, lines 7-19. Since

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 10 of 14
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

6

 This ruling does not mean, however, that Seaman must divulge all of the contents of his

conversations with the City Attorney, which may be protected by the attorney-client privilege.

11

the purpose of the call is a foundational issue, Seaman was improperly instructed not to answer the

question.6

 

In addition, although defendants invoked the protections of the Brown Act during the

depositions, that privilege is not recognized under federal law. North Pacifica, LLC v. City of

Pacifica, 274 F. Supp.2d at 1126. Implicitly conceding this, defendants now assert the deliberative

process and mental process qualified privileges recognized in North Pacifica as a potential basis for

protection of City Council closed sessions. Id. Despite the assertion of these additional, albeit

untimely objections, the questions posed by the Padgetts to Wright and Seaman do not attempt to

invade either the "deliberative" or "mental" processes of the City Council. Rather, the questions are

specifically directed towards the dissemination of public newspapers articles which may have been

distributed or discussed during closed session meetings. Defendants may not, therefore, hide behind

the cloak of "closed session privileges" when relevant, material information concerning the Council

members' direct involvement in the alleged violation of the Padgetts' civil rights is sought to be

discovered. Id. 

Moreover, defendants' contention that it is impossible to "sort out" any privileged legal

advice that may have been given or discussed during closed door sessions fails, because the

questions posed to Seaman and Wright do not appear to intrude into substantive legal issues. None

of the inquiries ask for specific information conveyed by the City's counsel. For these reasons, the

motion to compel Seaman and Wright to answer further deposition questions is granted.

2. Rice Deposition Questions

With respect to the questions posed by the Padgetts to Rice, no objection was made on the

basis of privilege. Instead, Rice appeared for her deposition without counsel and proceeded to

answer all questions, with the exception of several concerning her present living and employment

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 11 of 14
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 12

situation, as well as some additional questions seeking to elicit personal information. Claiming these

to be "irrelevant" to the Padgetts' claims, she refused to answer. Relevancy, however, is not a proper

objection to raise in response to a deposition question. International Union of Elec., Radio &

Machinery Workers, AFL-CIO v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 91 F.R.D. 277, 278 (D.D.C. 1981)

(deponent must answer question even if it calls for irrelevant information). An attorney may only

instruct a deponent not to answer in order to preserve a privilege, enforce a discovery limitation

previously ordered by the court, or adjourn the deposition to seek a court order limiting further

examination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Accordingly, the motion to compel Rice to answer further

deposition questions is granted. As noted by the Court at the hearing on this motion, however, only

foundational questions concerning any mental and emotional treatment Rice may have received will

be permitted.

 V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the motions to compel are granted in part and denied in part, as

follows:

1. The motion to compel Rice to provide additional finger and palm prints is denied.

2. The motion to compel defendants to provide further responses to discovery request

numbers 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16, as delineated above, is granted. Defendants shall

provide all additional, responsive materials, as well as a privilege log listing all

materials withheld on the basis of privilege, to the Padgetts within ten (10) days of

the date of this order.

3. The motion to compel defendants to provide its computers and related materials for

inspection will be determined upon further submissions by the parties, as set forth

above.

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 12 of 14
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 13

4. The motion to compel Wright, Seaman, and Rice to answer further deposition

questions is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: 2/24/06 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 13 of 14
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Joseph C. Howard , Jr jhoward@hrmrlaw.com, 

tmaster@hrmrlaw.com;dlongstaff@hrmrlaw.com 

James McManis jmcmanis@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com 

Michael Reedy mreedy@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Dated: 2/24/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 157 Filed 02/24/06 Page 14 of 14