Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03946-16/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

For the Northern District of California

*E-FILED 4/26/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH PADGETT AND DARLA

PADGETT,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF MONTE SERENO, ET AL.,

Defendants. /

NO. 5:04-cv-3946 JW (RS)

ORDER DIRECTING LISA RICE

TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE

WHY SHE SHOULD NOT BE

HELD IN CONTEMPT

On March 22, 2006, the Court issued an order granting a motion to compel brought by

plaintiffs. That order provided, in relevant part, 

With respect to the questions posed by the Padgetts to Rice, no objection was made

on the basis of privilege. Instead, Rice appeared for her deposition without counsel

and proceeded to answer all questions, with the exception of several concerning her

present living and employment situation, as well as some additional questions

seeking to elicit personal information. Claiming these to be "irrelevant" to the

Padgetts' claims, she refused to answer. Relevancy, however, is not a proper

objection to raise in response to a deposition question. International Union of Elec.,

Radio & Machinery Workers, AFL-CIO v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 91 F.R.D. 277,

278 (D.D.C. 1981) (deponent must answer question even if it calls for irrelevant

information). An attorney may only instruct a deponent not to answer in order to

preserve a privilege, enforce a discovery limitation previously ordered by the court,

or adjourn the deposition to seek a court order limiting further examination. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Accordingly, the motion to compel Rice to answer further deposition

questions is granted. As noted by the Court at the hearing on this motion, however,

only foundational questions concerning any mental and emotional treatment Rice

may have received will be permitted.

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 235 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 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 2

The Court is advised that plaintiffs’ counsel’s subsequent attempts to communicate

with Rice to arrange for her to appear for deposition have gone unanswered, and that Rice

has failed and refused to appear for deposition.

Accordingly, LISA RICE IS HEREBY ORDERED to appear in Courtroom 4 of the

United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113, on May 17,

2006, at 9:30 a.m., to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failure to

comply with the Court’s prior order.

Plaintiff’s counsel shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Lisa Rice by mail

at her address of record, shall make reasonable efforts to serve her personally with a copy,

and shall do so forthwith .

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 235 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Marwa Elzankaly melzankaly@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com

Joseph C. Howard , Jr jhoward@hrmrlaw.com, tmaster@hrmrlaw.com;

dlongstaff@hrmrlaw.com

James McManis jmcmanis@mfmlaw.com, clarsen@mfmlaw.com; smaes@mfmlaw.com

Christine Peek cpeek@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com

Michael Reedy mreedy@mfmlaw.com, smaes@mfmlaw.com

Colleen Duffy Smith cduffysmith@mfmlaw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Dated: April 26, 2006 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 235 Filed 04/26/06 Page 3 of 3