Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02061/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02061-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JULIO R. AYALA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-02061 WHA

ORDER FOLLOWING

DISCOVERY HEARING OF

NOVEMBER 14, 2006

At the discovery hearing on November 14, 2006, parties were ordered to agree

upon and file a proposed order regarding the rulings on November 17, 2006. Parties were

unable to come to an agreement. The Court’s order is as follows. 

1. DEPOSITIONS OF VERONICA VARGAS AND PEDRO ESCOBAR REQUESTED

BY DEFENDANTS TO TAKE PLACE IN COLOMBIA.

The burden is on the party seeking to take a foreign deposition to make all

necessary arrangements, including the administration of the oath, the presence of a court

reporter, and ensuring that witnesses will appear and answer questions. When a

deposition is noticed and all sides go to the place of the deposition only to find that one or

more of the prerequisites has not been satisfied, the responding party may lodge an

objection. If that objection is later sustained, then not only is the deposition unusable, but

the proponent of the deposition must pay all expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred

by the responding party. This is why most foreign depositions are taken pursuant to the

Hague Convention. It happens that the formalities of the Hague Convention are skipped

Case 3:06-cv-02061-WHA Document 59 Filed 11/21/06 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

on some occasions when a voluntary appearance is arranged and the other formalities of a

deposition are met without the formalities of the Convention. It nonetheless remains the

case that the burden to make the arrangements rests on the proponent.

Accordingly, the burden is on defendants to make all necessary arrangements for

taking the depositions of Veronica Vargas and Pedro Escobar in Colombia. If defendants

notice the deposition for Colombia, plaintiffs’ counsel will decline to appear at her own

peril. On the other hand, if plaintiffs’ counsel does appear and any formalities for a proper

deposition are missing and objected to, then plaintiffs’ counsel will be reimbursed for all

time and costs of attending the deposition by the defense. 

Here, defendants may depose Veronica Vargas and Pedro Escobar in Colombia,

subject to the caveat above. 

If the deposition is noticed for Colombia, defendants must pay for one coach,

round-trip plane ticket, reasonable hotel accommodations, and meals for the duration of

the deposition for one lawyer for plaintiffs.

If the depositions occur outside of California, but within the United States, the

Court will consider whether or not defendants will have to pay plaintiffs’ counsel’s

transportation costs and related expenses depending on the location of the deposition. 

In the alternative, the depositions may be conducted by video teleconferencing,

subject to establishing the formalities.

2. DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION OF PAROLE OFFICER.

Defendants can only depose Julio A. Ayala’s parole officer following the

deposition of the plaintiffs and only if plaintiffs’ testimony under oath can be contradicted

or impeached by the parole officer. 

3. TELEPHONE RECORDS OF PLAINTIFFS AND TANIA ORELLANA-ORTEGA.

Defendants are entitled to obtain plaintiffs’ land line and cell phone records for

five years preceding the incident date of April 3, 2005, subject to a protective order and

only for the purpose of establishing calls between plaintiffs and decedent Julio A. Ayala. 

Defense counsel will write a letter to plaintiffs’ counsel on November 14, 2006,

Case 3:06-cv-02061-WHA Document 59 Filed 11/21/06 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

G:\WHAALL\2006Civ\06-02061 Ayala\order after discovery hearing.wpd 3

identifying the phone numbers that they have for plaintiffs and Julio A. Ayala for the five

years preceding the incident, and plaintiffs’ counsel will confirm in writing no later than

Friday, November 17, 2006, whether any additional numbers exist.

Defendants are not entitled to obtain any telephone records for Tania OrellanaOrtega, decedent’s sister. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2006 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02061-WHA Document 59 Filed 11/21/06 Page 3 of 3