Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04311/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04311-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

E-Filed 4/26/16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERTO LAINEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SALINAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04311-EJD (HRL)

INTERIM ORDER ON DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE JOINT REPORT 3

Re: Dkt. No. 42

Plaintiffs filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report 3 (“DDJR 3”) unilaterally. Plaintiffs assert 

in DDJR 3 that Dr. Venus Azar (“Azar”) deliberately evaded process servers and that Azar, once 

finally served with a deposition subpoena as the result of a “full blown stakeout” around her home, 

stated through a “representative” that she refused to attend the noticed deposition. Dkt. No. 42 at 

3. Plaintiffs therefore request in DDJR 3 that the court order Azar to appear for her deposition and 

that Azar pay the costs that were incurred when she impeded, delayed, and frustrated their 

attempts to depose her.

Azar responded with a letter that asserts: (1) she is “rarely home” because she works long 

hours and she frequently travels out of town; (2) she was not deliberately attempting to “impede, 

delay or frustrate” Plaintiffs’ attempts to depose her; (3) she does not intend to violate the 

subpoena; and (4) she did not tell anyone to communicate any intention to violate the subpoena. 

Dkt. No. 44. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to Azar’s letter. Azar filed a second letter that 

asserts she attended her deposition and that Plaintiffs’ counsel no longer seeks to recover costs 

from her. Dkt. No. 48.

If Plaintiffs contest the assertions in Azar’s second letter, they shall file a response no later 

than April 29, 2016. If Plaintiffs file no response by that deadline, the court shall deny as moot 

Case 5:14-cv-04311-EJD Document 49 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs’ request for relief in DDJR 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/26/16

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04311-EJD Document 49 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 2