Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-0328 JSW (MEJ)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

REQUEST TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY

GENERAL BILL LOCKYER

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery dispute letter, filed September 5, 2006,

regarding a joint deposition notice served by defendant interveners Alliance of Catholic Health Care,

Christian Medical Association, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

and the Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants ("Defendants"). Doc. #100. In their notice of

deposition, Defendants sought to take the videotaped deposition of California Attorney General Bill

Lockyer. 

In the joint letter, Defendants argue that Lockyer has stepped into the role of a witness by

submitting a sworn declaration on the merits in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

and has been identified by the Plaintiffs as a knowledgeable witness as to the merits of their claims. 

In response, Plaintiffs argue that Bill Lockyer should not be compelled to appear for the noticed

deposition because heads of government agencies are not normally subject to depositions under

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 103 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 3
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

federal law.

The need to limit the use of subpoenas served on high government officials was recognized

by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 421-22 (1941). 

There, the district court allowed plaintiffs to take the deposition of the Secretary of Agriculture

regarding decisions made in his official capacity, and subsequently to call him to testify at trial. The

Court stated that this type of examination of a high government official threatened to undermine the

"integrity of the administrative process." Id. at 422. The Ninth Circuit also recognizes that heads of

government agencies are not normally subject to depositions under federal law. Kyle Engineering

Co. v. Kleepe, 600 F.2d 226, 231-32 (9th Cir. 1979) ("Heads of government agencies are not

normally subject to deposition and the district court's order directing [the Administrator of the Small

Business Administration] to answer interrogatories in lieu of a deposition does not appear

unreasonable.").

Here, Defendants seek to compel the deposition of Bill Lockyer, the chief law officer of the

State of California under the California Constitution. Under the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit

standard, Lockyer would normally not be subject to deposition. However, in support of their

summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs have submitted his declaration, and also identified him as a

knowledgeable witness as to the merits of their claims. Accordingly, Lockyer's deposition might be

appropriate if it is essential to prevent prejudice or injustice to Plaintiffs. Wirtz v. Local 30, Int'l

Union of Operating Engineers, 34 F.R.D. 13, 14 (S.D.N.Y. 1963). 

Upon consideration of the parties' arguments and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that

Lockyer's deposition is not essential. Defendants have failed to demonstrate why they can not seek

the information they desire by propounding additional interrogatories or noticing other witnesses for

deposition. As the Ninth Circuit stated in Kyle, interrogatories are an appropriate discovery method

in lieu of deposing a high ranking government official. Kyle, 600 F.2d at 231. While Defendants

might prefer a deposition instead of interrogatories, this preference runs counter to the Ninth

Circuit's application of the high ranking government official rule in Kyle. Accordingly, the Court

hereby DENIES Defendants' request to compel Lockyer's deposition. Defendants may, in the

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 103 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 3
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 3

alternative, seek the information they desire by propounding additional interrogatories or noticing

other witnesses for deposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2006 _________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 103 Filed 09/12/06 Page 3 of 3