Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04624/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04624-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WADE ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHIRAZ QADRI, AVENIR RESTAURANT

GROUP, INC. and GREG ST. CLAIRE,

Defendants. /

No. C06-04624 JF (HRL)

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

BY PALO ALTO AND DAN RYAN AND

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS, WITH ADDENDUM

[Re: Docket Nos. 280 and 284]

I. BACKGROUND

This is a tort action for false imprisonment and false arrest stemming from a dispute

over a bar tab at Nola’s Restaurant in Palo Alto and the immediately following events

culminating in Plaintiff’s arrest for DUI by the Palo Alto Police. Plaintiff alleges that when he

was leaving Nola’s he was falsely imprisoned at the bar for 17 minutes. Then, immediately

after he left, defendant Qadri (Nola’s manager) conducted a (false) citizen’s arrest by hailing a

policeman and reporting that Robertson was about to drive a vehicle while intoxicated. 

Defendants deny any wrongdoing (arguing, for example, that the 17 minutes was the time it

took to straighten out the bar tab in Robertson’s favor), and that Plaintiff is simply looking for a

scapegoat for the consequences of his bad judgment to drive after drinking. (Robertson denies

any consumption of alcohol that evening.) Robertson’s DUI trial has been set, then reset, a

*E-FILED 1/17/2008*

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 305 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 6
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 Robertson made a number of evidentiary objections to Palo Alto’s papers, and

both sides requested (or objected) to judicial notice of certain matters. These will be dealt

with in the Addendum to this Order.

2

 number of times. Reportedly, a setting hearing is on for next week.

Plaintiff subpoenaed for deposition in this case Palo Alto Police Agent Dan Ryan, the

DUI arresting officer. Palo Alto produced him, but limited examination to Ryan’s education,

his background, and the brief declaration he signed in this (civil) case purporting to authenticate

the DUI police reports. Ryan was not allowed by Palo Alto to testify about his observations or

activities with respect to the car stop, roadside tests, or arrest of Robertson.

Before this court now are interrelated motions. Palo Alto and Ryan move for a

protective order precluding further deposition of Ryan until after Robertson’s criminal case is

over (including any appeal). Robertson moves for monetary sanctions for having to oppose the

protective order motion as well as for the “suspension, delay, and re-adjournment” of the Ryan

Deposition.1

II. DISCUSSION

Palo Alto and Ryan argue that it is hornbook law that a party cannot use the liberal rules

in civil discovery to circumvent the stiff restrictions on criminal discovery:

A litigant should not be allowed to make use of the liberal discovery

procedures applicable to a civil suit as a dodge to avoid the restrictions

on criminal discovery and thereby obtain documents he would not

otherwise be entitled to for use in his criminal suit. Judicial discretion

and procedural flexibility should be utilized to harmonize the conflicting

rules and to prevent the rules and policies applicable to one suit from

doing violence to those pertaining to the other.

Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, 487 (5th Cir. 1962).

Without squarely challenging the so-called hornbook law, Robertson argues that he

wants Ryan’s testimony for his civil suit, and – since Ryan has, in effect, injected himself into

the civil suit by providing a declaration about the police report – he should be fair game for a

probing civil deposition.

Nevertheless, it is surely self-evident that, regardless of Plaintiff’s motivation, Ryan’s

sworn testimony about the arrest is highly relevant to the criminal case. Indeed, Robertson

himself substantially acknowledged as much when, in papers filed in an earlier motion, he

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 305 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 6
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 See July 20, 2007 Order, Docket No. 181 at 2:17-19) (“The Court hereby

stays discovery propounded by Defendants that seeks to elicit testimony by Plaintiff, whether

oral or written, that would implicate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in the ongoing

prosecution in state court.”); see also this court’s November 13, 2007 Order (Docket No.

278).

3

argued that all issues in the civil case are intertwined with the subject matter of the criminal

case. Obtaining the testimony of Ryan in advance of the criminal trial would give Robertson a

distinct advantage over the prosecution since (1) the prosecution cannot obtain Robertson’s

testimony about the arrest, and (2) neither can the defendants in this civil case at this time.2

In Campbell, supra, the court examined the policy reasons for limiting discovery in

criminal cases and cited with approval a law review article that offered three reasons for the

limitations: (a) to minimize the criminal defendant’s opportunity to manufacture evidence or

commit perjury; (b) to avoid revealing confidential informants, and (c) to strike a fair balance

since the prosecution cannot get broad discovery from defendant (i.e., cannot compel defendant

to testify either before or at trial). Neither (a) or (b) is implicated is the present case, but (c)

seems right on point. Quoting the article, the Campbell court said: “The validity of each of

these objections [to broad criminal discovery] must be appraised in each of the situations in

which the defendant may seek discovery and must be weighed against the importance to the

defendant of the disclosure.” Campbell, 307 F.2d at 487 n.12.

With the teaching of the Campbell opinion in mind, this court asked Robertson at the

hearing if he would suffer any prejudice in the civil suit if his deposition of Ryan was delayed

until after his DUI trial. All he could suggest was that he wanted to pin down Ryan’s testimony

before he finished Qadri’s deposition or deposed other (unnamed) persons. This argument,

however, does not convince because Plaintiff is under no pressure to take these other

depositions any time soon. He can wait until after the trial, then finish Ryan’s deposition, and

then depose these others. There is no cutoff date on discovery and no trial date. Indeed, the

pleadings are not yet settled (defendants have a pending motion to dismiss the third amended

complaint; plaintiff has a pending motion to file a fourth amended complaint).

In summary, after weighing competing legitimate interests and possible prejudice, this

court concludes that Ryan’s deposition should not be resumed until after the conclusion of the

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 305 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 6
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

criminal case at the trial court. The argument of Palo Alto and Ryan that a stay should run until

after conclusion of an appeal of the criminal case is rejected.

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. A protective order with respect to the conclusion of the deposition of Agent

Ryan is granted and that deposition is stayed until the trial court completion of the Robertson

criminal matter; and

2. Robertson’s motion for sanctions is denied.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 17, 2008

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 305 Filed 01/17/08 Page 4 of 6
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

ADDENDUM

1. Docket #296 Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice: Granted

2. Docket #297 Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice: Granted

3. Docket #298 and 299 Plaintiff’s Objections to the Declarations of Donald Larkin:

Plaintiff objects to certain specific portions of the declarations on one or more of the

grounds of lacking in foundation, speculative, argumentative, no personal knowledge,

conclusory, or hearsay. In net effect, Plaintiff claims that some of Larkin’s declarations were

really argument in disguise. Some portions were. However, this court’s ruling on the two

motions at hand does not depend on whether the challenged portions of Larkin’s declarations

were properly authenticated and admissible “testimony” or whether they were nothing more

than argument. The court appreciated what was argument and considered the declarations for

what they were worth.

4. Docket #300 Palo Alto’s Objection to Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (Docket

#297): Denied.

5. Docket #301 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice: Granted.

6. Docket #302 Plaintiff’s Objection to Palo Alto’s Opposition to his Request for Judicial

Notice (Docket #300): Overruled.

7. Docket #303 Plaintiff’s Objection to Palo Alto’s Reply Memorandum (#293): 

Overruled. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a).

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 305 Filed 01/17/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

5:06-cv-4624 Notice electronically mailed to: 

Peter Dixon dixon@ldbb.com 

Timothy Gray cjung@nassiri-jung.com 

Charles Hyunchul Jung cjung@nassiri-jung.com 

Donald Alan Larkin Donald.Larkin@cityofpaloalto.org, carolyn.shannon@cityofpaloalto.org 

Wade Robertson c0604624@yahoo.com 

Wade Anthony Robertson c0604624@yahoo.com 

Shannon Kathryne White white@lbbslaw.com

Counsel are responsible for delivering a copy of this document to co-counsel who have not

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

Case 5:06-cv-04624-JF Document 305 Filed 01/17/08 Page 6 of 6