Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03316/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03316-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO-ANTONIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SARA IQBAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03316-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S 

REQUEST FOR MISCELLANEOUS 

RELIEF; JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER; 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 63

On September 14, 2016, Plaintiff Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio filed a request for 

miscellaneous relief, based on Defendant Sadia Ghani Iqbal's refusal to produce certain 

discovery—such as a current address, highest level of education, and date of birth—and to 

participate in the joint letter process, as required by the Court's standing order. (Dkt. No. 61.) On 

September 21, 2016, the Court terminated the request and ordered Defendant Sadia Ghani Iqbal to 

provide her portion to the joint letter by September 26, 2016. (Dkt. No. 67.) On October 10, 

2016, Plaintiff filed a second request for miscellaneous relief, which stated that Defendant Sadia 

Ghani Iqbal had not provided her portion to the joint letter, despite the Court's order. (Dkt. No. 69 

¶ 7.) Plaintiff also stated that at Defendant Waseem Iqbal's deposition on October 7, 2016, 

Defendant Waseem Iqbal refused to provide routine background information, including a current 

address, highest level of education, and date of birth. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff indicated that Defendants' 

refusal to provide this information is based on Defendants' claim that Plaintiff is a gang member. 

(Id. ¶ 10.) 

On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant Waseem Iqbal filed a joint discovery 

letter regarding whether Defendant Iqbal's deposition can be videotaped per Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 30. (Dkt. No. 63.) Defendant Iqbal objected to the videotaping of his deposition on the 

Case 4:14-cv-03316-KAW Document 70 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 4
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

grounds that he is an undercover agent for the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and 

that Plaintiff is or was an active gang member. (Dkt. No. 63 at 2.) On September 21, 2016, the 

Court issued an order for supplemental briefing, requiring Defendant Iqbal to provide evidence in 

support of these claims by September 30, 2016. (Dkt. No. 66.) As of October 11, 2016, no 

supplemental briefing has been filed.

I. REQUEST FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

Plaintiff states that Defendants Sadia Ghani Iqbal and Waseem Iqbal have refused to 

provide personal information, including a current address, highest level of education, and date of 

birth, and to participate in the joint letter process. (Dkt. No. 69 ¶¶ 6, 9.) The Court 

TERMINATES Plaintiff's request for miscellaneous relief and again ORDERS Defendants to 

provide their portion to the joint letter by October 20, 2016. Failure to comply with this order will 

be construed as a waiver of objections to the discovery at issue in Plaintiff's requests for 

miscellaneous relief.

II. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(3) provides: "The party who notices the deposition 

must state in the notice the method for recording the testimony. Unless the court orders otherwise, 

testimony may be recorded by audio, audio-visual, or stenographic means." Thus, parties are 

"authorized to record deposition testimony by nonstenographic means without first having to 

obtain permission of the court or agreement from other counsel." Fed. R. Civ. P. 407 advisory 

committee's note to 1993 amendment.

The Court finds that Plaintiff may proceed with a videotaped deposition of Defendant 

Iqbal.1 Defendant Iqbal has provided no evidence substantiating his claims that he is an 

undercover agent or that Plaintiff is a gang member, even after the Court issued an order for 

supplemental briefing. Absent any evidence in support of these claims, the Court finds that 

permission of the court was not required to record Defendant Iqbal's deposition testimony.

 

1

This request may now be moot as Plaintiff indicated the deposition took place on October 7, 

2016. (Docket No. 69 ¶ 9.)

Case 4:14-cv-03316-KAW Document 70 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 require that the attorney signer certify that, "to the best 

of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the 

circumstances," that a filing's "factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so 

identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further 

investigation or discovery." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). Here, Defendants' counsel has represented 

to the Court that Defendant Waseem Iqbal is an undercover DHS agent and accused Plaintiff of 

being a gang member in a public document. These are serious allegations to make, especially 

without any apparent evidentiary support. Defendant's counsel also failed to provide any 

evidentiary support when given the opportunity to do so. Attorney Oliveri is therefore ordered to 

show cause by October 21, 2016 explaining what evidentiary basis he has for these claims, and 

why the Court should not impose sanctions, on him individually, sua sponte under Rule 11(c). To 

the extent there are confidential documents, Defendants' counsel may request permission to file 

the documents under seal in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5.

In addition, Defendants' counsel has allegedly refused to comply with the Court's 

September 21, 2016 order that Defendant Sadia Ghani Iqbal participate in the discovery process 

and provide her portion to the joint letter regarding by September 26, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 67, 69.) 

Attorney Oliveri is therefore also ordered to show cause, by October 21, 2016, why he should not 

be sanctioned for his failure to comply with the Court's September 21, 2016 order under the 

Court's inherent authority. See Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc., No. C-01-2079 VRW, 

2003 WL 21699799, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2003) ("there is no question the court may, again 

under its inherent authority, sanction failure to comply with court orders. . . and for 'discovery 

abuses that may not be a technical violation of the discovery rules'") (quoting Halaco Eng'g Co. v. 

Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 380 (9th Cir. 1988)).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff does not require the Court's permission to take a 

videotaped deposition of Defendant Iqbal. Additionally, defense counsel is ORDERED TO 

SHOW CAUSE on or before October 21, 2016 why the Court should not impose Rule 11 

Case 4:14-cv-03316-KAW Document 70 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

sanctions sua sponte for his unsupported claims that his client is an undercover DHS agent and 

that Plaintiff is or was a gang member, and why the Court should not impose sanctions for his 

failure to comply with the Court's September 21, 2016 order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03316-KAW Document 70 Filed 10/14/16 Page 4 of 4