Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02449/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02449-20/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAHLEEM TINDLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF DALY CITY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02449-HSG (DMR)

ORDER RE DEPOSITION OF 

PLAINTIFF SAHLEEM TINDLE; 

PLAINTIFF BANKS-REED’S

UNILATERAL DISCOVERY LETTER 

RE DISCOVERY MATERIALS 

DESIGNATED “ATTORNEY’S EYES 

ONLY”

Re: Dkt. Nos. 150, 151, 153

Before the court are two unilateral discovery letters. The first contains Defendants’ motion 

to compel Plaintiff Sahleem Tindle to appear for his deposition, which most recently was noticed 

for May 24, 2016. Defendants’ May 19, 2016 Unilateral Discovery Letter [Docket No. 150]. In 

the second letter, Plaintiff Banks-Reed challenges the designation of certain discovery as

“Attorney’s Eyes Only,” and seeks production of all such designated discovery directly to 

Plaintiffs, who now are proceeding pro se.1 Banks-Reed also seek sanctions against Defendants 

for an alleged failure to meet and confer. Plaintiff Banks-Reed’s May 19, 2016 Unilateral 

Discovery Letter [Docket No. 151]. The presiding judge, the Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., has 

referred all discovery disputes in this case to the undersigned. [Docket No. 99.] 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Sahleem Tindle, Yolanda Banks-Reed, Ciara Turner, minor R.R., minor I.T., and 

Kevin Reed filed the present action in May 2013 against Defendants the City of Daly City (“the 

 

1

Plaintiffs were initially represented by the Law Offices of John L. Burris. [Docket No. 1.] That 

firm moved to withdraw as counsel, and the court granted the motion in June 2014. [Docket Nos. 

33 and 43.] The court subsequently referred plaintiffs to the Federal Pro Bono Project and 

Stephen Akerley of the law firm of Dechert LLP was appointed as pro bono counsel for Plaintiffs 

in December 2014. [Docket Nos. 67 and 73.] In January 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel made a motion 

to withdraw, which the court granted in February 2016. [Docket Nos. 127 and 136]. 

Case 4:13-cv-02449-HSG Document 155 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 5
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

City”), and Daly City Police Officers Shane Hart and Mario Busalacchi. The lawsuit challenges

conduct arising out of a traffic stop on April 18, 2012 in Daly City, California. Complaint 

[Docket No. 1] ¶¶ 1, 15, 16. In the course of the traffic stop, a physical altercation ensued 

between Tindle and the Defendant officers. Id. at ¶¶ 21-22. One of the Defendant officers 

deployed his taser on Tindle. Id. at ¶ 22. 

Tindle brings claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, assault and battery, false arrest and 

imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of California Civil Code §§ 

51.7 and 52.1, and negligence against Hart and Busalacchi. Plaintiffs Banks-Reed, Reed, minor 

R.R., and Ciara Turner bring a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the City, 

Hart and Busalacchi.2 See Compl. 

II. PLAINTIFF TINDLE’S DEPOSITION 

On June 17, 2015, Defendants first noticed Tindle’s deposition to take place on July 27, 

2015. Joint Statement of Discovery History, Nov. 20, 2015 Joint Discovery Letter [Docket No. 

112] at 2. After lengthy meet and confer efforts, Defendants served Plaintiffs with deposition 

notices for depositions beginning on October 19, 2015. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs subsequently

informed Defendants that they were no longer available the week of October 19, 2015, but offered 

the week of October 26, 2015. Id. at 3. After more communication, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to 

make Tindle available for deposition on Monday, October 26, 2015, with the remaining Plaintiffs 

to follow. Id. On the afternoon of Friday, October 23, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed 

Defendants that Tindle would not be appearing for his deposition on October 26, 2015. On 

November 5, 2015, Plaintiffs informed Defendants for the first time that it was unclear whether 

Tindle would be able to provide deposition testimony in the case due to mental health issues. Id. 

at 3-4.

On November 20, 2015, the parties filed a joint discovery letter in which Defendants 

sought to compel Tindle to appear for his deposition, or to stay the case if Tindle was not able to 

give accurate deposition testimony. Id. Plaintiffs conceded that Defendants had a right to depose 

 

2

The parties stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of minor I.T.’s claims. [Docket No. 102.] 

Case 4:13-cv-02449-HSG Document 155 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Tindle, but argued that Defendants did not have a right to depose Tindle before the other Plaintiffs. 

Id. at 6. Defendants argued that Tindle was the “main witness, protagonist and only individual 

who has brought civil rights clams against Defendants” and that his testimony was essential to 

Defendants’ ability to defend against the case. [Docket No. 112 at 5.] 

The undersigned held a hearing on the dispute on November 30, 2015. At the hearing, 

Plaintiffs’ pro bono counsel represented to the court that Tindle was unable to sit for his 

deposition due to the fact that he was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which 

rendered him unable to recount the basic facts of the case. Counsel stated that Tindle had started 

seeing a therapist in the last two weeks and that counsel had requested a release from Tindle and 

an assessment from the therapist, but had not been able to obtain them. The court instructed 

Plaintiffs’ counsel to make best efforts to submit an assessment from Tindle’s therapist within a 

week. Plaintiffs did not submit the assessment. Instead, on December 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a 

letter stating that Tindle would appear for his deposition. Dec. 11, 2015 Letter from Plaintiffs’ 

counsel [Docket No. 120]. In light of this change in position, the court instructed the parties to 

submit a stipulated proposed deposition schedule. [Docket Nos. 121-123.] The parties’ proposed 

schedule set Tindle’s deposition on January 14, 2016, prior to the depositions of the other 

Plaintiffs or the Defendant officers. December 17, 2015 Letter with Joint Proposed Deposition 

Schedule [Docket No. 122]. The undersigned approved the schedule and directed the parties to 

submit a proposal for an extension for the fact discovery cut-off to Judge Gilliam. Order re 

Parties’ Joint Proposed Deposition Schedule [Docket No. 123]. 

Prior to the date of Tindle’s deposition, Plaintiffs’ pro bono counsel filed a motion to 

withdraw as counsel of record. Motion to Withdraw [Docket No. 127]. Judge Gilliam granted the

motion on February 19, 2016. Order Granting Motion to Withdraw [Docket No. 136]. Tindle’s

deposition did not go forward. 

On March 22, 2016, Judge Gilliam held a case management conference (“CMC”) with 

Plaintiffs Banks-Reed and Reed and Defendants’ counsel in attendance. March 22, 2016 CMC

Minute Order [Docket No. 137.] At the conference, Plaintiff Banks-Reed agreed to accept service 

on behalf of all of the Plaintiffs. March 22, 2016 CMC H’rg Tr. [Docket No. 149] at 8:4-25. 

Case 4:13-cv-02449-HSG Document 155 Filed 06/03/16 Page 3 of 5
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

Judge Gilliam told the parties that the depositions of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant officers had 

to move forward promptly, and instructed the parties to meet and confer to update the previously 

agreed-upon deposition schedule. Id. at 4:15-22, 9:12-21, 11:21-12:7. Judge Gilliam issued a 

scheduling order extending the fact discovery cutoff to August 5, 2016. Scheduling Order 

[Docket No. 138]. 

On May 10, 2016, Defendants served a notice for Tindle’s deposition for May 24, 2016, 

which Defendants state was the only date that Plaintiffs had provided for Tindle’s deposition. 

Defendants’ May 19, 2016 Unilateral Discovery Letter [Docket No. 150 at 3]; Deposition Notice 

[Docket No. 150, Ex. 3]. The depositions for Banks-Reed, minor R.R., Ciara Turner, minor I.T., 

and Reed were noticed for May 25 and 26, 2016. Deposition Notice [Docket No. 150, Ex. 3.]

On May 19, 2016, Defendants filed a unilateral discovery letter asking the court to compel 

Tindle to appear for his deposition on May 24, 2016. [Docket No. 150.] According to 

Defendants, Tindle had not objected to the notice of deposition, nor did he confirm his intent to 

appear at the May 24, 2016 deposition. Id. On May 31, 2016, the court issued a clerk’s notice 

requesting that Defendants indicate whether Tindle had appeared for his deposition. [Docket No. 

152.] Defendants filed a letter stating that Tindle’s deposition did not go forward on May 24, 

2016 because Banks-Reed informed Defendants on May 20, 2016 that she could not confirm 

whether or not Tindle would attend his deposition. Defendants’ June 1, 2016 Letter [Docket No. 

153.] Defendants stated that they took the depositions off calendar to avoid the expense of the 

videographer and court reporter. Id. 

In light of this history, it is clear that Tindle’s deposition should go forward without further 

delay. The undersigned orders that by Monday, June 6, 2015, Tindle must file a letter that 

provides at least five available weekday dates for deposition during the weeks of June 6, 2016 and 

June 13, 2016. Defendants shall promptly re-notice Tindle’s deposition for one of his available 

dates. Tindle’s failure to attend his deposition may result in sanctions. The parties shall also 

immediately meet and confer to schedule depositions for the remaining Plaintiffs and the 

Defendant Officers. Those depositions shall take place after Tindle’s deposition. 

Case 4:13-cv-02449-HSG Document 155 Filed 06/03/16 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. PLAINTIFFS’ ACCESS TO “ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” MATERIAL

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Banks-Reed filed a unilateral discovery letter seeking access to 

all material designated as “Attorney’s Eyes Only” (“AEO”) material directly to pro se Plaintiffs. 

[Docket No. 151]. Defendants have not filed a response or otherwise informed the court of their 

position on the issues set forth in the letter. 

By June 10, 2016, Defendants are hereby ordered to file a two-page response to Plaintiff’s 

discovery letter. Defendants shall inform the court of the volume and types of materials that they 

have designated as AEO in this case. Defendants shall also attach a log, similar to a privilege log, 

identifying the materials designated as AEO, the basis for withholding the materials from the 

Plaintiffs, and whether Defendants’ concerns about Plaintiffs’ access to the discovery materials 

can be addressed through redactions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:13-cv-02449-HSG Document 155 Filed 06/03/16 Page 5 of 5