Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00377/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00377-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MARQUES PHILLIPS and CYNTHIA

PHILLIPS,

NO. CIV. S-04-0377 FCD PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CHIEF OF

POLICE WILLIAM GRESHAM,

OFFICER MARK SCHRAER, OFFICER

CHAD TIGERT, OFFICER STEVE

TROJANOWSKI, JR., OFFICER MIKE

BEATTY, OFFICER MATTHEW

THOMAS, OFFICER STEPHEN RUIZ,

OFFICER TROY OVIATT, OFFICER

JEREMY NIPPER, OFFICER FRANCO

CESAR, OFFICER CADE BECKWITH,

and DOES 1 through 13,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to

quash subpoenas served on City Council Members Frank Kardos and

John Mraz. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. For the reasons set

forth below, defendants’ motion is DENIED.

Case 2:04-cv-00377-FCD-EFB Document 214 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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 Section 54956.9 provides:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a

legislative body of a local agency, based on advice of

its legal counsel, from holding a closed session to

confer with, or receive advice from, its legal counsel

regarding pending litigation when discussion in open

session concerning those matters would prejudice the

position of the local agency in the litigation.

Cal. Govt. Code § 54956.9 (West 2006).

2

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or

modify the subpoena if it “requires disclosure of privileged or

other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies” or if

the subpoena “subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. Rule Civ.

Proc. 45(c)(3)(A)(iii-iv). “The burden of showing that a

subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive is upon the party to whom

it is directed.” Goodman v. United States, 369 F.2d 166, 169

(9th Cir. 1966). 

Defendants assert that plaintiffs’ subpoenas should be

quashed because the only information the subpoenaed Council

Members have regarding the case at bar is information they

received in a closed session meeting with counsel for the City of

Fairfield. Therefore, they argue that this information is

privileged pursuant to California Government Code § 54956.9.1

Plaintiff argues that any privilege that applied was waived by

the Council Members. Plaintiff seeks information about the

practices of the Fairfield City Police Department which were

described in a report authored by the two Counsel Members.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00377-FCD-EFB Document 214 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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 Section 54956.9 provides:

Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this

section, the legislative body of the local agency shall

state on the agenda or publicly announce the

subdivision of this section that authorizes the closed

session. If the session is closed pursuant to

subdivision (a), the body shall state the title of or

otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be

discussed, unless the body states that to do so would

jeopardize the agency's ability to effectuate service

of process upon one or more unserved parties, or that

to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude

existing settlement negotiations to its advantage.

Cal. Govt. Code § 54956.9 (West 2006).

3

The court held oral argument on this matter on September 29,

2006. The court asked the parties to submit declarations

regarding the applicability of the asserted privilege and any

waiver of the privilege. Specifically, the court asked defendant

to provide evidence that it complied with the procedural

requirements of California Government Code § 54956.9.2

The defendants submitted declarations by Council Members

Frank Vardos and John Marz. These declarations do not reference

compliance with the procedural requirements of § 54956.9. 

Further, even if this privilege applies to the discussions made

at the closed meeting, the declarations reveal that the report

sought by plaintiffs was initially discussed in a closed session,

but was adopted in open session.

Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that

the subpoenaed information is privileged. Therefore, defendants’

motion to quash plaintiffs’ subpoenas is DENIED. Defendants also

argue that any information known by the Council Members is

irrelevant to this litigation. However, the court cannot make

such a determination without review of the report itself. 

Case 2:04-cv-00377-FCD-EFB Document 214 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Further, the denial of defendants’ motion to quash does not

prevent defendants from filing a motion in limine regarding the

admissibility of this evidence. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 6, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00377-FCD-EFB Document 214 Filed 10/06/06 Page 4 of 4