Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04906/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04906-7/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 1

 The Court uses plaintiffs’ given names to avoid confusion.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GIUSEPPE “NINO” CAMPANELLA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JEFFREY LONGORIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. 04-04906 RS

Consolidated With Case No. 05-1945 RS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants’ motion to compel the resumption of the deposition of plaintiff Domenica

Campanella was heard on March 14, 2007. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be

granted.

II. BACKGROUND

This action arises from an incident in which the defendant sheriff's deputies allegedly entered

plaintiffs’ home and violated their civil rights in the course of responding to a 911 call for medical

assistance. The consolidated case involves a second incident, some months later, when deputies

entered the home to arrest plaintiff Giuseppe Campanella on domestic violence charges.

At Giuseppe’s1

 criminal trial, Domenica testified that her father had not engaged in abuse,

and he was acquitted. In the spring of 2006, further allegations of abuse were reported to the

*E-FILED 3/16/07*

Case 5:04-cv-04906-RS Document 82 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 4
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

sheriff’s office, and two uniformed deputies were dispatched to Domenica’s school to interview her. 

Defendants assert that during the interview, Domenica confirmed the substance of the abuse charges.

The interview was recorded. 

When Domenica appeared for deposition in this action, her counsel, who was representing all

plaintiffs, apparently was unaware that the interview had taken place, much less that a recording

existed. Counsel instructed Domenica to answer no questions regarding the interview. Giuseppe

was present at the deposition and started to comment, but counsel also told him to say nothing. 

After a discussion off the record, plaintiff’s counsel announced that he had an irreconcilable conflict

of interest, and that he would be withdrawing. The deposition therefore terminated.

The Court subsequently granted the motion by plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw. Domenica

(and her siblings) are now represented by new, separate counsel. Neither Domenica’s new counsel

nor Giuseppe’s new counsel object in principle to the resumption of Domenica’s deposition, but they

contend that the recording or transcript of the interview should be produced prior to the deposition. 

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants are unwilling to produce the recording or a transcript of the interview voluntarily

because they believe that Giuseppe may attempt to direct or influence Domenica’s responses to the

questions defendants likely will ask at the resumed deposition. Without making any determination

regarding defendants’ concerns, they can be ameliorated and the respective interests of the parties’

balanced by production of the recording or transcript to counsel for Domenica on an “attorney eyes

only” basis.

Accordingly, defendants shall produce a copy of the recording or transcript to counsel for

Domenica forthwith, who may discuss its contents with Domenica, but who shall not otherwise

divulge the contents to any person until after Domenica’s deposition. The parties shall cooperate to

schedule the resumption of the deposition as promptly as practicable.

Case 5:04-cv-04906-RS Document 82 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL 

04-04906 RS 

3

IV CONCLUSION

The motion to compel is granted, to the extent and on the terms set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04906-RS Document 82 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL 

04-04906 RS 

4

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

Adam Richard Bernstein bernsteinlaw@earthlink.net, jagarini@earthlink.net

Aryn Paige Harris aryn_harris@cco.co.scl.ca.us

Stephen H. Schmid stephen.schmid@cco.co.santa-clara.ca.us,

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: 3/16/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-04906-RS Document 82 Filed 03/16/07 Page 4 of 4