Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05001/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05001-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SLACK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RUSSELL E. BURNS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05001-EMC (KAW)

11/5/15 JOINT LETTER REGARDING 

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE 

TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF 

DEBBIE SHANK MORGAN

Re: Dkt. No. 244

On November 5, 2015, the parties filed a joint letter concerning Defendants’ request for 

leave to take the deposition of Debbie Shank Morgan. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 244.) Ms. Morgan is 

believed to have been employed or retained as an investigator by Plaintiff’s counsel’s predecessor 

firm, or other firms with whom Plaintiffs have been associated. (Joint Letter at 2.) Ms. Morgan is 

currently incarcerated and serving a six-month prison sentence for obstruction of justice. Id. 

Specifically, her conduct allegedly involved the fabrication of evidence and providing false 

information to a federal agent in an attempt to “frame” a union official of embezzlement. Id.

Defendants contend that they are required to obtain leave of court to conduct the deposition 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(B), which requires leave of court if “the 

deponent is confined in prison.” (Joint Letter at 2.) Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Morgan is scheduled 

to be released on December 3, 2015, so Defendants can simply subpoena her. (Joint Letter at 3.) 

Defendants believe that they will still require leave of court after Ms. Morgan’s prison term 

concludes, because she will be on house arrest, and will be under the supervision of the Probation 

Department. (Joint Letter at 2.) Therefore, Defendants require leave of court to depose Ms. 

Morgan in either Texas, where she is incarcerated, or in Ohio, where she will be serving six 

months of home confinement. (Joint Letter at 3.)

Case 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Document 246 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Furthermore, Plaintiffs contend that the pending action’s two remaining claims involve the 

imprudent approval of $100 million Pension Fund investment more than five years before Ms. 

Morgan was charged with any criminal conduct in New Jersey, so her testimony is not relevant. 

(Joint Letter at 3.) This mischaracterizes Defendants’ position. Indeed, Defendants believe that 

Ms. Morgan worked on this case and is a percipient witness, who can testify to facts that fall 

outside of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines. (Joint Letter at 3.) Defendants

do not appear to be seeking discovery concerning the criminal conduct that led to her 

incarceration. 

Moreover, it is premature to determine whether Ms. Morgan’s testimony is subject to any 

applicable privileges. While it is unclear whether Defendants require leave of court to depose Ms. 

Morgan after her release, she is currently confined to prison. Thus, in an abundance of caution,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(2), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for 

leave to depose Ms. Morgan, be it in Texas or Ohio, for the purposes of this litigation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05001-EMC Document 246 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 2