Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01696/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01696-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY J. NEWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ELIZABETH

PALMER AND DOES 1-100 inclusive,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12cv1696-GPC (BLM)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST FOR COURT ASSISTANCE

IN COORDINATING THE

DEPOSITIONS OF LISA KAHN, ASIF

KAHN, AND AMIR KAHN 

[ECF No. 27]

Currently before the Court is Defendant County of San Diego’s August 8, 2013

request for assistance from the Court in coordinating the depositions of Lisa, Asif, and Amir

Kahn [ECF No. 27].

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 9, 2012, Defendants removed the instant matter to this Court from the

Superior Court of the State of California. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that

Defendants violated Plaintiff's civil rights. ECF No. 1-1. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that

he went to the Chula Vista branch of the San Diego Superior Court to see if there were any

excess vehicles available for purchase. Id. at 3. When Plaintiff arrived at the court, he

properly parked his car in a handicap parking space, exited his vehicle, and approached a

chain link fence where he saw several Ford Crown Victoria vehicles that he thought might

12cv1696-GPC (BLM)

Case 3:12-cv-01696-GPC-BLM Document 30 Filed 09/05/13 Page 1 of 5
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

be for sale. Id. Once at the fence, Plaintiff proceeded to take photographs of the cars. 

Id. Plaintiff alleges that as he made his way to the garage to obtain additional information

about the cars, he was approached by Defendant Palmer who blocked his path and

inquired as to why Plaintiff was parked in a handicap space. Id. at 4. When Plaintiff

explained what he was doing, Defendant Palmer informed Plaintiff that she did not believe

him and asked him to "shut up," "sit his ass on the bumper of his" car, and not to move. 

Id. Plaintiff alleges that this occurred after he informed Defendant Palmer that he was a

retired San Diego Police Officer. Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that he complied with Defendant Palmer's orders and that she made

a call and additional deputies soon appeared. Id. Plaintiff next alleges that Defendant

Palmer opened his car door and grabbed his wallet without his consent, and that Defendant

Palmer would not allow Plaintiff to stand up and stretch when he began suffering from back

spasms. Id. Plaintiff states that Defendant Palmer searched his wallet and questioned him

as to who Lisa Kahn (Plaintiff's significant other) was and whether or not she was born in

the United States. Id. Defendant Palmer next ordered a Deputy Sheriff to conduct a pat

down on Plaintiff, which took place in full view of the general public, and proceeded to ask

Plaintiff for his social security number and where he was born. Id. Defendant Palmer then

allegedly told Plaintiff to stand for a photo as she continued to scroll through the pictures

on Plaintiff's cell phone without his consent. Id. at 4-5. Next, Defendant Palmer ordered

a deputy sheriff to run Plaintiff's license plate number as she searched his car. Id. at 5. 

Defendant Palmer soon informed Plaintiff that his vehicle registration was expired, he had

an outstanding warrant for his arrest, and his license was suspended. Id. Plaintiff alleges

that Defendant Palmer then inquired if Plaintiff's license was suspended due to his failure

to make child support payments. Id. Defendant Palmer next had a deputy write a moving

violation citation against Plaintiff for driving with a suspended license. Id. Finally, Plaintiff

alleges that Defendant Palmer inquired as to whether or not Plaintiff had any scars or

tattoos, ordered Plaintiff to delete any photographs that he had taken of the cars at the

courthouse, and confiscated his car keys with a warning that he had twenty minutes to get

-2- 12cv1696-GPC (BLM)

Case 3:12-cv-01696-GPC-BLM Document 30 Filed 09/05/13 Page 2 of 5
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

a ride home before his car would be towed. Id. Plaintiff was then released without being

charged with a crime. Id. On July 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first

amended complaint that is scheduled to be heard by Judge Curiel on October 18, 2013. 

ECF No. 25.

On August 1, 2013, someone from defense counsel’s office contacted chambers via

telephone and stated that they were seeking the Court’s assistance in coordinating the

depositions of nonparty witnesses. On August 2, 2013, the Court issued a briefing schedule 

requiring Defendant to file its motion on or before August 9, 2013, Plaintiff to file his

opposition on or before August 16, 2013, and Defendant to file its reply, if any on or before

August 23, 2013. ECF No. 26. Defendant filed its motion to compel on August 8, 2013. 

ECF No. 27. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion and Defendant did not file a

reply. See Docket.

DISCUSSION

Defendants request the Court’s assistance in coordinating the depositions of Lisa

Kahn and her two sons who live with Plaintiff and who picked him up from the courthouse

and drove him home on the night of the incident. ECF No. 27 at 1-2. In support,

Defendant states that “[d]efense counsel attempted to have the Kahns served with

deposition subpoenas, but the numerous service attempts were unsuccessful, and Plaintiff

threatened physical harm to the process server.” Id. Specifically, after asking the process

server “[w]hat the fuck do you want?,” Plaintiff told the process server that Lisa was not

home and that he needed to “get the fuck off [Plaintiff’s] property before [Plaintiff] kick[ed]

his ass” before pushing the process server from behind. Declaration of David Brodie at 2. 

When the process server asked Plaintiff to refrain from touching him, Plaintiff responded

“[g]o ahead and call the cops, they won’t care, I am a cop. And if you come back to my

property again I will beat your ass.” Id. Defense counsel notes that he discussed the

incident with Plaintiff’s counsel who informed him that the Kahns were hesitant to

participate in a deposition because they believed they would be asked about “illegal or

terrorism-type activities.” Id. at 3. After telling Plaintiff’s counsel that he would only be

-3- 12cv1696-GPC (BLM)

Case 3:12-cv-01696-GPC-BLM Document 30 Filed 09/05/13 Page 3 of 5
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

asking questions related to the incident which is the basis of this complaint, on July 4, 2013,

Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he would give the information to his client. Id. Since that

conversation, Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded to defense counsel despite the fact that

defense counsel sent follow up emails on July 16, 2013 and July 26, 2013. In the last

email, defense counsel told Plaintiff’s counsel that he would contact the Court for assistance

if he did not receive a response by July 26, 2013. Id. Defense counsel did not receive a

response and seeks the Court’s assistance so that he may take the Kahn’s depositions

without “risk[ing] physical harm” to anyone. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has not opposed the

motion. See Docket.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 45 governs subpoenas issued to third

parties. A subpoena is required to procure testimony or documents from one who is not

a party to the action or controlled by a party to the action. FRCP 45. The subpoena must

be served by a non-party who is at least eighteen years old. FRCP 45(b)(1). Service of a

subpoena must be made by personally delivering a copy of the subpoena to the person

being served and there is no substitute service. See Prescott v. County of Stanislaus, 2012

WL 10617, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012) (stating that “[p]ersonal service of a deposition

subpoena is required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(b)(1),” that “[a] majority of courts interpret

‘delivering’ to require personal service,” and noting that while “the Ninth Circuit has not

issued a published opinion on this topic, more than a decade ago, in Chima v. United States

Dep’t of Defense, 23 Fed. Appx. 721 at *6–7 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2001), the Court issued an

unpublished decision affirming trial court's refusal to compel compliance with subpoena that

was served by mail”) (citing San Francisco BART Dist. v. Spencer, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

73140 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2006); Alexander v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

34398 at *17–18 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2011) (personal service required under Rule 45(b)(1));

and Collagen Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Neocell Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98228 (S.D. Cal.

Sept. 17, 2010) (“Rule 45 mandates personal service for subpoenas.”).

Here, Defendants have not properly served the Kahns with deposition subpoenas so

the Court does not have authority to compel the depositions. Moreover, Defendants do not

-4- 12cv1696-GPC (BLM)

Case 3:12-cv-01696-GPC-BLM Document 30 Filed 09/05/13 Page 4 of 5
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

state precisely what they are asking the Court to do, nor the legal basis for their request. 

While the Court understands and appreciates Defendants’ frustration with Plaintiff’s alleged

conduct, Defendant fails to provide a citation to a single case, rule, or statute stating that

this Court has the authority to compel the depositions of non-party witnesses who have not

been properly subpoenaed.1 Accordingly, despite the fact that Defendants’ motion is

unopposed, it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

However, Plaintiff is warned that he may not interfere with Defendants’ legitimate

efforts to serve deposition subpoenas on the Kahns. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 5, 2013

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

1

In fact, the case law seems to indicate that the Court does not have any such authority. See Ulin v.

Lovell's Antique Gallery, 2010 WL 3745824, *1 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 17, 2010) (recalling that the court previously

"held that it had no authority to compel the deposition of a non-party witness where Plaintiff had not served

him with a deposition subpoena" when deciding Plaintiff’s motion to compel a deposition); see also Prescott,

2012 WL 10617, *3 (stating that “[b]ecause the subpoena was not properly served on Dr. Pick [who was not

a party to the action], the Court lacks the authority to compel compliance with it”). 

-5- 12cv1696-GPC (BLM)

Case 3:12-cv-01696-GPC-BLM Document 30 Filed 09/05/13 Page 5 of 5