Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00869/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00869-11/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES H. WASHBURN JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALEX FAGAN JR., WALTER CONTRERAS,

and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

KEVIN ROY JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALEX FAGAN, JR., JASON KRISTAL, and

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-03-00869 MJJ (EDL)

No. C-03-1194 MJJ (EDL)

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES

ARISING IN DEPOSITION OF ALEX

FAGAN 

On November 17, 2005, the parties contacted the Court regarding discovery disputes that arose

just before the deposition of Alex Fagan Jr. commenced. Civil L.R. 37-1(b). The primary issues were

whether the deposition should be videotaped and, if so, whether the videographer should be disqualified. 

The Court held a telephonic conference regarding the parties’ dispute. 

Defendants’ objected that the deposition notice regarding videotaping was untimely because it was

served by mail and by facsimile on November 14, 2005. After Judge Jenkins ordered that this deposition

take place within three weeks from November 1, 2005, the parties worked to agree on a date, and on

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 220 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

November 11, 2005, finally agreed on November 17, 2005. Under those circumstances, Plaintiffs’

deposition notice faxed on November 14, 2005 was timely. 

Further, Defendants’ objection that the deposition videographer, who has worked for Plaintiffs as

an investigator, was an interested party and therefore should be disqualified under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 28(c) is overruled. 6 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 28.10 at 28-8

(3d ed. 2004) (“If, in addition to a court-reported stenographic record, the deposition is also recorded by

sound or sound-and-visual means, the person making the nonstenographic record is not the person “taking”

the deposition because he or she does not administer the oath and is not responsible to certifying the

accuracy of the record. In these circumstances, the person making the nonstenographic record is not

subject to disqualification for interest under Rule 28(c) and thus need not be independent of the parties or

counsel.”). As the Court instructed, the videographer should, of course, videotape the deposition in a fair

manner, and the Court assumes that he will do so. If not, Defendants may seek an order restricting use of

the videotape at trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00869-MJJ Document 220 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 2