Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06546/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06546-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY SYNCLAIR, SR., ) 1:01cv6546 AWI DLB 

)

)

) ORDER RE DISCOVERY MOTIONS 

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 vs. ) (Documents 117, 118, 119 and 120)

)

COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., )

) 

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

On February 19, 2008, plaintiff Larry Synclair, Sr., filed a motion to compel production of

documents, depositions and further discovery. On February 20, 2008, defendants filed a motion for a

protective order and further depositions. The motions were heard before the undersigned on March

14, 2008. Attorney Cynthia Arroyo appeared on behalf of plaintiff and attorney Erica Camerena

appeared for defendants. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is pursuing this civil action, under 42 U.S.C. §1983, for administrative

non-prosecutorial conduct that resulted in violation of his procedural due process and substantive

due process rights. Plaintiff claims defendants failed to establish policies and procedures to ensure

that its employees and agents, including individually named defendants, would follow orders of the

Case 1:01-cv-06546-AWI-DLB Document 126 Filed 03/24/08 Page 1 of 3
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

Superior Court. Synclair also claims, defendants failed to take steps to implement orders of the court

to cooperate with federal officials in connection to the international parental abduction of his son and

that their failure violated 42 U.S.C. §1983 and resulted in depriving Synclair of his constitutional

right to procedural and substantive due process.

On July 31, 2003, this Court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which is confined to cases brought by state-court litigants complaining

of injuries caused by state-court judgments which were rendered before the federal district court

proceedings commenced. The Court stated that to try the case, it would have to review Judge

Cardoza’s Order to determine its validity. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the judgment

was affirmed on February 16, 2005. On November 28, 2005, the United States Supreme Court

remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not

prevent district courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction and the Ninth Circuit remanded the

case back to this court.

A. Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents

In October 2003, plaintiff’s former counsel served a request for production of documents. At

issue in the present motion are Request Numbers 1, 2 and 3.

Defendants are in the process of going through their documents and have agreed to provide a

supplemental response to plaintiff within two (2) weeks.

B. Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Discovery to Depose Witness and Defendants’

Motion for Protective Order

Plaintiff requests an extension of the discovery cutoff to depose witnesses. Defendants object

and argue that plaintiff should have taken these depositions years ago. 

Plaintiff has expressed his intention to call his treating therapist Ms. Valerie Brink as a

witness. Defendants seek a “protective order” excluding her testimony. Defendants argue the first

time they learned of her was during the preparation for plaintiff’s deposition when he requested that

she be present at his deposition on January 19, 2008. If plaintiff is allowed to identify her as a

witness now, defendants argue: (1) they should not bear the cost of travel to take her deposition in

Case 1:01-cv-06546-AWI-DLB Document 126 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 3
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

Florida; (2) her testimony should be limited to that of a lay witness and not that of an expert, as the

expert designation has passed; and (3) defendants should be given the opportunity to have plaintiff

submit to an IME. Defendants are opposed to further depositions as discussed above. However, if

plaintiff is allowed to re-open discovery to take new depositions, defendants request to take the

depositions of Emily Griffith and Devora Goldberg-Lockton.

As discussed at the hearing, because this case was on appeal for several years, additional

discovery is necessary. Despite their objections to the other’s proposed additional discovery, both

plaintiff and defendants acknowledge their need for updated information. Accordingly, the parties

shall prepare a stipulation to extend to the discovery cutoff and dispositive motion deadline. 

With regard to Ms. Brink, the parties shall meet and confer to obtain Ms. Brink’s treatment

records. The parties shall then discuss the possibility of a video-conference deposition. The parties

shall contact the undersigned if they need assistance in the meet and confer process. 

CONCLUSION

The parties’ respective discovery motions are granted in part as discussed in this order. 

Defendants shall provide a supplemental response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents. 

The parties shall submit a stipulation and proposed order extending the discovery and dispositive

motion deadlines. The parties shall meet and confer regarding treatment records and the deposition

of Ms. Brink. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 24, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06546-AWI-DLB Document 126 Filed 03/24/08 Page 3 of 3