Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-00574-11/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN TENNISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-0574 CW (EMC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PURSUANT

TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 11

Defendants Napoleon Hendrix and Prentice Earl Sanders filed a motion for civil contempt

against third party Luther T. Blue, which was heard on July 27, 2005. In their motion, Defendants

claimed that Mr. Blue improperly invoked his right against self-incrimination at his deposition and

that, even if the privilege had been properly invoked, the privilege had been waived based on Mr.

Blue’s prior interviews with the police in 1990 and a prior declaration signed in 2000, all taking

place well before this lawsuit was initiated in 2004. Defendants maintained this position in spite of

well-established authority that “a waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege is limited to the particular

proceeding in which the waiver occurs.” United States v. Licavoli, 604 F.2d 613, 623 (9th Cir.

1979); see also In re Neff, 206 F.2d 149, 152 (3d Cir. 1953) (noting that “a person who has waived

his privilege of silence in one trial or proceeding is not estopped to assert it as to the same matter in a

subsequent trial or proceeding”; “privilege attaches to the witness in each particular case in which he

may be called on to testify, and whether or not he may claim it is to be determined without reference

to what he said when testifying as a witness on some other trial, or on a former trial of the same case,

and without reference to his declarations at some other time or place”).

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 333 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

In light of the well-established authority, including but not limited to the cases cited above,

the Court hereby orders Defendants to show cause why they have not violated Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 11(b) by signing, filing, submitting, and advocating a motion arguing for a waiver of the

Fifth Amendment privilege. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1) (discussing certification by attorney that, to

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

the circumstances, the legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous

argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new

law).

Defendants shall file a response to this order to show cause within two weeks of the filing of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2005

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-00574-CW Document 333 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 2