Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04888/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04888-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY GREEN, SR., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

MERCY HOUSING, INC., a Nebraska

corporation; MERCY HOUSING

MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a Nebraska

corporation d/b/a East Leland Court; MERCY

HOUSING CALIFORNIA XXXVIII, a

California limited partnership; and DOES 1-

10, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 18-04888 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION TO

COMPEL

The Court has received the deposition transcript dated May 8, 2019 of deponent and

plaintiff, Rodney Green and its corresponding exhibits. The deponent provided credit union

statements, receipts of check withdrawals for rent, and money order receipts for the deposition

(Davis Decl., Exh. B-2 at 21-103, 145-146, 156-158). 

Notwithstanding that deponent provided the aforementioned documents, Timothy

Davis, counsel for defendant Mercy Housing, Inc., repeatedly tried to get deponent to admit

something that was not true, mainly that deponent had only provided Patelco Credit Union

statements or that deponent provided nothing more than “the Patelco Credit Union statements

and one page of three money orders” (Karbelashvili Decl., Exh. B at 217:9-11; 218: 12-20;

219:12-22). 

Case 3:18-cv-04888-WHA Document 63 Filed 06/25/19 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

When Irene Karbelashvili, plaintiff’s counsel, tried to explain what documents the

deponent had provided, Davis responded, “No, I do not want any explanation” (220:4-6). The

proceedings went downhill from there. 

Davis has demonstrated a history of trying to extract concessions that go somewhat

further than records support. Deponent is within his rights to refuse to admit to something that

is not quite true. Deponent’s refusal to be bullied to admit more than required is acceptable,

but the bullying is not. 

The Court will hereby appoint a special master to complete the deposition of Mr.

Green. This special master may possibly be used in other depositions in this case. The special

master’s fees will be paid fifty-fifty by both sides subject to adjustment at a later date to reflect

each party’s comparative need. 

This order derives its authority to appoint a special master pursuant to suggestion of

counsel and from the supplemental power under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37(c). 

The Court finds Davis’s refusal to ask fair questions and deponent’s inability to give straight

answers warrants the appointment of a special master under Rule 37(c). 

By JULY 10, 2019 AT NOON, the parties will submit a proposed form of reference and

the Court will select one of its previous law clerks as special master unless the parties can

agree on someone else. 

As to the evidentiary objections made by plaintiff’s counsel, the Court deems them

moot because it did not rely on them or they were not taken. 

The hearing regarding defendant’s motion to compel is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-04888-WHA Document 63 Filed 06/25/19 Page 2 of 2