Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05425/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05425-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
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

JOHN F. CHAMPAGNE, JR., ET AL., Case No. C-06-05425 JSW (JCS)

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ORDER RE JOINT LETTER

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF OF FEBRUARY 14, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL., [Docket No. 48]

Defendant(s).

__________________________________/

In this action, Plaintiffs allege fraud and civil conspiracy against the City and County of San

Francisco (the “City” or “Defendants”) and claim that the City improperly exonerated a tenant of

code violations at premises owned by Plaintiffs. The allegedly improper conduct took place in the

months leading up to August 8, 2005, the date on which Plaintiffs’ unlawful detainer case was

scheduled to go to trial against the tenant. In a Joint Letter dated February 14, 2008 [Docket No. 48]

(the “Motion”), Plaintiffs seek the following relief from the Court: (1) permission to take up to 25

depositions (Plaintiffs have already taken nine depositions); (2) permission to propound 60

interrogatories; and (3) an order compelling the depositions of the San Francisco Fire Department

Chief Joanne Hayes-White and Deputy Chief Kochevar. The Motion is DENIED.

The request to take 25 depositions is excessive. While Plaintiffs suggest that there are 13

additional individuals that may have discoverable information, Plaintiffs make no effort to identify

what information, if any, they may possess. Plaintiffs have already taken nine depositions, and all

parties have agreed that Plaintiffs may take two additional depositions for a total of 11. In addition,

the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they are entitled to take the deposition of any expert identified

Case 4:06-cv-05425-JSW Document 49 Filed 02/26/08 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

by Defendants during expert disclosures. This is not a complex case, and 11 non-expert depositions

is more than sufficient. 

Similarly, Plaintiffs have not offered sufficient justification for 60 interrogatories. Plaintiffs’

only argument is that they have used 20 interrogatories and they need more, citing Defendants’

largely boilerplate affirmative defenses. There is no indication that Plaintiffs have not had a

sufficient opportunity to inquire into Defendants’ positions, and have remaining 5 interrogatories per

Plaintiff for any additional discovery that is necessary.

Plaintiffs also violate Rule 26's admonition that they request only information reasonably

calculated to yield admissible evidence by seeking the depositions of Chief Hayes-White and

Deputy Chief Kochevar. There is no evidence that either of these individuals had any involvement

in the decisions of the Defendants to “exonerate” Plaintiffs’ tenant. Plaintiffs offer no evidence that

Deputy Chief Kochevar has any relevant information. Plaintiffs admit that Chief Hayes-White had

no involvement until after the decisions were made on the code violations, and after Plaintiffs’

unlawful detainer against the tenant was scheduled to go to trial. Plaintiffs settled that matter. The

fact that Chief Hayes-White attended a meeting with Plaintiffs when they complained after these

events does not change this conclusion. Morever, others attended that meeting and could have been

deposed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs may not simply depose the head of a city agency without some

showing that the information to be gained could not have been learned from lesser officials. See

Kyle Eng’g Co. v. Kleppe, 600 F. 2d 226, 231 (9th Cir. 1979).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-05425-JSW Document 49 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 2