Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01991-16/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REYNALDA MOLINA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VISALIA, et. al.

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER 

REQUIRING SHANEL ALVARADO TO 

SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR

AND REQUIRING SHANEL ALVARADO 

TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION ON 

JANUARY 29, 2016 AT 9:00 A.M.

(ECF Nos. 65, 68) 

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ second ex parte application for an order 

requiring non-party Shanel Alvarado to appear for a deposition.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Reynalda Molina, Jacqueline Mendez-Maduena, Nicholas Chavez, and minors 

J.M., G.M., and N.A.C. filed this action on December 4, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) Currently this 

action is proceeding on the second amended complaint, filed June 20, 2014, against Defendants 

City of Visalia, and Officers Adam Collins, Daniel Roberts, and Dirk Alfano alleging 

unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, violations of substantive 

due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and state law claims. 

The claims in this action arise out of an incident in which officers attempted to make a 

traffic stop which led to a high speed chase and resulted in injury to Nicholas Chavez and the 

deaths of Edwardo Maduena and Ruben Molina. (ECF No. 40.) On November 20, 2015, 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 69 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff Chavez’s claims were dismissed with prejudice upon the stipulation of the parties. 

(ECF No. 50.) 

On July 20, 2015, Defendants personally served on nonparty Shanel Alvarado a subpoena 

to appear for a deposition on August 27, 2015, at 1:00 a.m. in Visalia, California. (Subpoena to 

Testify at Deposition in a Civil Action, Exhibit A, ECF No. 54-1.) The parties to this action 

appeared at 1:00 p.m. on August 27, 2015, for the deposition, however Ms. Alvarado did not 

appear. (Nonappearance of Shanel Alvarado Transcript, Exhibit B, ECF No. 54-1.) On 

September 2, 2015, Defendants filed an ex parte application for an order to show cause why 

sanctions should not issue for the failure to appear and for an order compelling attendance at the 

deposition. (ECF No. 54.) Defendants’ application was denied on September 4, 2015, because 

notice was deficient as the deposition was attempted at a time different the time than Ms. 

Alvarado was ordered to appear. (ECF No. 56.)

On December 10, 2015, at 8:14 p.m., Ms. Alvarado was personally served with a 

subpoena to appear for a deposition on December 14, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. (Subpoena to Testify at 

Deposition in a Civil Action 5-6, ECF No. 65-1.

1

) Ms. Alvarado did not appear on December 

14, 2015. (Nonappearance of Shanel Alvarado Transcript 9-14, ECF No. 56-1.) On December 

16, 2015, Defendants filed an ex parte application for an order requiring Shanel Alvarado to 

appear to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for her failure to appear and for an 

order requiring her to appear for a deposition on January 29, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. (ECF Nos. 65, 

68.)

II.

DISCUSSION

Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may depose any 

person for oral deposition. Where the person to be deposed is not a party to the action, the 

deponent’s attendance may be compelled by issuing a subpoena under Rule 45. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(a)(1). 

 

1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 69 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the requirements for a subpoena. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (a)(1)(A). As relevant here the subpoena must command the individual to 

appear at the time and place. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). Rule 45(g) provides that the court 

“may hold in contempt a person, who having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey 

the subpoena or an order related to it.” “The party moving for contempt has the burden to 

establish by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnor has violated a clear and specific 

court order.” Forsythe v. Brown, 281 F.R.D. 577, 587 (D. Nev. 2012) report and 

recommendation adopted, No. 3:10-CV-00716-RCJ, 2012 WL 1833393 (D. Nev. May 18, 2012).

“A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable 

steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45(d)(1). The Court must enforce this duty. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). In this instance, 

Ms. Alvarado was served at 8:14 p.m. on Thursday, December 10, 2015, and was required to 

appear at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, December 14, 2015. In addressing reasonable notice for a party 

to appear at a deposition, courts generally find that one week to ten days’ notice is reasonable. 

Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., No. 11-0069-WQH (WVG), 2014 WL 1670094, at *2 

(S.D. Cal. April 28, 2014); Charm Floral v. Wald Imports, Ltd., No. C10-1550-RSM, 2012 WL 

424581, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2012); Lam v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C 08-

04702 PJH (LB), 2011 WL 4915812, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011). In this instance, the Court 

finds that providing less than four days’ notice to appear at the deposition would impose an 

undue burden on the deponent. Since the Court finds that the notice in this instance was not 

reasonable, the Court shall deny Defendants’ application for an order to show cause.

Defendants make the conclusory statement that Ms. Alvarado has attempted to avoid 

service of the subpoena. However, there is no evidence in the record to support this allegation. 

The Court notes that the proof of service shows that the process server did not receive the 

subpoena until December 9, 2015, and served Ms. Alvarado the following day. However, since 

this is the second time that Ms. Alvarado has failed to appear for a deposition, the Court finds it 

appropriate to issue an order requiring her to appear for a deposition. Defendants shall be 

required to provide Ms. Alvarado with reasonable notice of the date and time to appear. 

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 69 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 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

4

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ ex parte application for an order requiring Shanel Alvarado to show 

cause is DENIED;

2. Defendants shall serve a copy of this order on Shanel Alvarado on or before 

January 14, 2016;

3. Shanel Alvarado shall appear for deposition at Herr Pedersen & Berglund 

LLP, located at 100 Willow Plaza, Suite 300, Visalia, California, on January 

29, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.; and

4. Shanel Alvarado is advised that failure to comply with this order will result in the 

issuance of sanctions and may result in the issuance of a warrant for her arrest.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01991-DAD-SAB Document 69 Filed 12/18/15 Page 4 of 4