Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00326/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00326-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1 

Case No. 5:14-cv-00326-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KRISTOPHER KLAY, 

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:14-CV-00326 BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

(Re: Docket No. 65) 

Plaintiff Kristopher Klay moves for a protective order to prevent Defendant City of South 

Lake Tahoe from deposing his two supervisors where he currently works. Because Klay has failed 

to show that the depositions are likely to result in sufficient and specific harm or prejudice, and 

because both deponents have unique information highly relevant to Klay’s claims in this case, the 

court DENIES the motion. 

I.

 Klay worked as a firefighter in South Lake Tahoe until he was terminated in 2013. Klay 

alleges that his termination was based in substantial part on the contents of a 2013 police report 

detailing his detention in the City of Watsonville. In addition to alleging that South Lake Tahoe 

violated his civil rights, Klay alleges South Lake Tahoe that defamed him in the “firefighting 

community” by disclosing the contents of the police report. Klay contends such revelations 

significantly impacted his ability to get another job, caused severe emotional distress and otherwise 

negatively impacted his future as a firefighter. 

Case 5:14-cv-00326-BLF Document 107 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 5
2 

Case No. 5:14-cv-00326-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California

Klay now works as a firefighter for the City of Hollister. In pursuit of its defense that Klay 

has not suffered any harm to his reputation among firefighters, South Lake Tahoe has served 

deposition subpoenas on Captains Rod Dover and Sean Olguin, Klay’s current supervisors in the 

City of Hollister Fire Department. Worried that his probationary position may be jeopardized if his 

supervisors come to learn the details of the report through questions posed by South Lake Tahoe’s 

attorneys, Klay seeks a protective order to preclude South Lake Tahoe from deposing the 

supervisors and to enforce a previously-issued stipulated order preventing disclosure of the 

contents of the police report.1 

II.

 This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. The undersigned is assigned 

all discovery matters in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

 Under Rule 45, any party may serve a subpoena commanding a non-party to attend and 

testify at a deposition or to produce designated documents.2 Any such subpoena is subject to the 

relevance requirements set forth in Rule 26(b).3 Upon timely motion, the issuing court may quash 

or modify the subpoena if it causes undue burden.4 A party objecting to a subpoena served on a 

non-party must move to quash.5 “[A] court determining the propriety of a subpoena balances the 

relevance of the discovery sought the requesting party’s need, and the potential hardship to the 

party subject to the subpoena.”6 

 

1 See Docket No. 55. (“Defendants will not disclose the May 3, 2015 Watsonville Department 

police report or any other information garnered as a result of the detention of Plaintiff on May 3, 

2015 to Plaintiff’s current employers.”). 

2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). 

3 See, e.g., Sedaghatpour v. California, Case No. 07-cv-01802, 2007 WL 4259214, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Dec. 3, 2007). 

4 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A).

5 See id. 

6 Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting Compaq Computer 

Corp. v. Packard Bell Elec., Inc., 163 F.R.D. 329, 335-36 (N.D. Cal. 1995)). 

Case 5:14-cv-00326-BLF Document 107 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 5
3 

Case No. 5:14-cv-00326-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California

 When a party makes a motion for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c), “the court in 

which the action is pending may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person 

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue expense or burden, including . . . forbidding 

the disclosure or discovery.”7 “The moving party has a heavy burden of showing ‘extraordinary 

circumstances’ based on ‘specific facts’ that would justify such an order.”8 Under Rule 26(c), “the 

party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect [or 

deposition it seeks to protect against], of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no 

protective order is granted.”9 

III.

At issue is whether there is good cause to issue a protective order preventing South Lake 

Tahoe from deposing Klay’s current supervisors. Because the depositions are likely to produce 

new information relevant to Klay’s defamation allegations and Klay has not shown that he faces a 

specific prejudice or harm, South Lake Tahoe is entitled to take them. 

First, there is no question the supervisors have unique information relevant to Klay’s 

allegations. A key issue raised by the complaint is what training, advancement and promotional 

opportunities are currently available to Klay in the aftermath of the disclosure of the report. 

Another key issue is what pay and benefits Klay lost because of the disclosure. Yet another key 

issue is the emotional impact Klay alleges from the disclosure. As his immediate and current 

supervisors, Dover and Olguin are uniquely qualified to address each issue and whether any harm 

Klay suffered is, as Klay alleges, irreparable. It may be, as Klay urges, that South Lake Tahoe can 

get some of this same information from various employment documents that have been produced in 

this case. But some is not all, and documents alone are no substitute for deposition testimony. 

 

7

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). See also Finley v. Pulcrano, Case No. 08-cv-00248, 2008 WL 4500862, at 

*1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2008).

8 Koh v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-00927, 2011 WL 940227, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 

18, 2011). 

9

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). See also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (citing Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210–11); Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 5:14-cv-00326-BLF Document 107 Filed 06/22/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

Case No. 5:14-cv-00326-BLF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California

Second, South Lake Tahoe has disclaimed any interest in any privileged or highly 

confidential information that might otherwise justify a protective order.10 South Lake Tahoe also 

has represented that it will abide by the stipulated order by not disclosing the police report or any 

information gathered from it to either of the deponents.11 

Third, Klay testified in his deposition that he previously disclosed to his current employer 

the general circumstances of his termination from South Lake Tahoe. In response to a question 

about how he got hired by Hollister, Klay answered “I went straight to the fire chief and a couple 

high ranking captains and kind of had one-on-one sit-downs basically explaining my whole 

situation, laying everything out.”12 He also testified that he was directed by the Hollister Fire 

Chief not to include the release from probation on one application and to include that he was 

released from probation on another application.13 

Fourth, while Klay speculates that he faces adverse employment action by Hollister, he 

offers no evidence of a specific threat substantiating his concerns. 

 In sum, by bringing this lawsuit, Klay put the circumstances of his current job at issue. 

Especially in the absence of any proof that the deposition would expose Klay to any greater risk 

than he presently faces, it would be fundamentally unfair to deny South Lake Tahoe from 

information important to its defense. 

 

10 Cf. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1074 (9th Cir. 2004) (immigration status); Davis v. 

Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014 (1992) (psychological records); Mendez v. Superior 

Court, 206 Cal.App.3d 557, 566 (1998) (sexual conduct); Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 844, 

848 (1978) (political activities); Bd. of Trustees v. Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525-26 

(1981) (personnel records of tenure and promotion); El Dorado Savings & Loan v. Superior Court,

190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345-46 (1987) (entire personnel file).

11 See Docket No. 74-1 at 4. 

12 See Docket No. 74-7 at 276:12-15. 

13 See id. at 425:21-426:7 

Case 5:14-cv-00326-BLF Document 107 Filed 06/22/15 Page 4 of 5
Case 5:14-cv-00326-BLF Document 107 Filed 06/22/15 Page 5 of 5