Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_93-cv-03383/USCOURTS-cand-3_93-cv-03383-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO JOSE RIVERO, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, ET AL.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-93-3383 MJJ (JCS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST TO SERVE DISCOVERY AND

DEPOSITION NOTICES

By Order dated April 30, 2007 [Docket No. 436], this Court permitted the parties to engage

in limited discovery, so long as that discovery was approved in advance and confined to the two

issues that the Court determined were appropriate for further investigation. By letter May 14, 2007,

Defendants proposed to serve various discovery, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

Plaintiffs filed objections to Defendants’ proposed discovery. Good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

Defendants may serve all of the proposed discovery, except as noted below. The Court notes

that it is not ruling on any particular objections to any of the proposed discovery – other than the

question of whether or not the discovery falls within the scope of this Court’s April 30, 2007 Order

(the “Order”). All depositions shall be limited to the two subjects listed in the Order.

I. INTERROGATORIES

Defendant may propound interrogatories, Set One, with the following exceptions:

A. Interrogatory No. 1 shall be limited to the full name and current contact information

of all employees who performed services in connection with this action for whose

time Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys’ fees.

Case 3:93-cv-03383-MJJ Document 438 Filed 05/22/07 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

2

B. Defendant may not propound Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 10. While facts relating to the

accuracy of the time records in this matter are within the scope of discovery,

counsel’s “investigation” into those matters is not.

II. DOCUMENT REQUEST

Defendants may propound their Request for Production of Documents, Set One, except as

follows:

A. Request Nos. 1 and 2 shall be limited to fee agreements and/or retainer agreements in

this action between any or all Plaintiffs and their counsel.

B. Request Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are limited to documents recording time spent by counsel in

connection with the subject matters enumerated in these document requests, i.e., time

records.

C. Request No. 6 is limited to documents related to the facts alleged in Paragraphs 8 and

10 of the initial state court complaint.

D. Request No. 7 shall be limited to documents related to the allegations in the

February 3, 2005 Case Management Conference Statement in this action regarding

inflated billings.

III. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

Defendants may propound their Request for Admissions, Set One.

IV. DEPOSITIONS

Defendants may serve the deposition notices listed below. 

A. Defendants may be take the deposition of Randall Aiman-Smith, both as an

individual and as the person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) at the entity McPhee &

Aiman-Smith. This deposition shall constitute one deposition. However, since Mr.

Aiman-Smith has been proffered by Plaintiffs as a PMK, McPhee & Aiman-Smith

shall be bound by Mr. Aiman-Smith’s answers.

1. The topics for the PMK’s deposition are as stated in the notice of deposition,

with the following exceptions: Topic No. 7 is limited to the hourly rates paid

by clients for each attorney associated or affiliated with the firm from 1993

Case 3:93-cv-03383-MJJ Document 438 Filed 05/22/07 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

3

until the present who billed time in the instant action for which Plaintiffs seek

a fee award.

2. Document Requests for the PMK and Aiman-Smith depositions are limited as

follows: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are limited to fee agreements and/or retainer

agreements in this action; Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 are limited to time records;

Paragraph 6 is limited to attorneys who billed time in this action and for

which Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys’ fees; no documents shall be

produced in response to Paragraph 7; and, Paragraph 8 shall be limited to

orders awarding or denying attorneys’ fees for services of attorneys who

billed time in the instant action. 

B. Defendants may take the deposition of Dean McPhee. However, the documents to be

produced by Mr. McPhee are limited in the same manner as the documents produced

by Mr. Aiman-Smith.

C. Defendants may not take the deposition of Reed Marcy without a further showing of

good cause.

D. Defendants may take the deposition of Richard Shikman. However, Paragraphs 1 and

2 of the documents that Mr. Shikman has been requested to bring to the deposition

shall be restricted to non-privileged documents relating to the facts alleged in

Paragraphs 8 and 10 of the state court complaint, or to the facts regarding inflated

billings stated in the February 3, 2005 Case Management Conference Statement in

this action. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the documents requested from Mr. Shikman are

limited to fee agreements and retainer agreements in this action.

E. Defendants may not take the deposition of the PMK of the Law Offices of Richard

Shikman as there is no evidence that this is any different than deposition Mr.

Shikman himself.

F. Defendants may not take the deposition of Jim Schratz without a further showing of

good cause. 

Case 3:93-cv-03383-MJJ Document 438 Filed 05/22/07 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

4

G. Defendants may serve the deposition notices and request for production of documents

on Mr. Charles Hansen and Mr. Jared Peterson.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2007

 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:93-cv-03383-MJJ Document 438 Filed 05/22/07 Page 4 of 4