Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00286/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00286-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMUNDO VICENTE RUBIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VISALIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00286-DAD-SAB

ORDER RE: INFORMAL DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE 

(ECF Nos. 27, 28)

On January 14, 2022, the parties filed a joint informal discovery dispute letter brief. (ECF 

No. 28.) The dispute involves the manner in which three of Plaintiff’s witnesses may be deposed. 

An informal videoconference was held on January 20, 2022 to address the dispute. Counsel 

Vincent J. DeSimone appeared for Plaintiff and counsel Leonard Charles Herr appeared for 

Defendants. 

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Raymundo Vicente Rubio initiated this action on March 1, 2021, asserting multiple 

federal and state law claims against Defendants City of Visalia, Chief Jason Salazar, and Officers 

Marisa Burkdoll and William Hansen. (ECF No. 1.) The action arises from an incident on January 

Case 1:21-cv-00286-SAB Document 30 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 6
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

22, 2020, when Plaintiff was allegedly targeted by the Officer Defendants due to his race, beaten 

by the officers, and attacked by Defendants’ police dog. Plaintiff additionally asserts a Monell

claim and claims pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior against the City of Visalia. 

On September 10, 2021, the Court issued a scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 16. (ECF No. 24.) Pursuant to the order: the non-expert discovery deadline is set 

for May 6, 2022; the expert discovery deadline is July 1, 2022; the dispositive motion deadline is 

September 2, 2022; and the pretrial conference is set for May 22, 2023. No trial date is set. 

The instant discovery dispute arises from Defendants’ attempts to depose three of Plaintiff’s 

witnesses: Helen Salinas (Plaintiff’s mother), Yajaida Keys, and Juan Flores. The last two 

witnesses were listed in Plaintiff’s initial disclosures and purportedly may only be contacted 

through Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendants want to depose the witnesses in-person and seek production 

of documents from Ms. Salinas. Plaintiff argues the depositions should be conducted remotely in 

light of the pandemic. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court limiting Defendant City 

of Visalia to deposing Ms. Keys only once across two civil litigations — the instant case and a 

separate lawsuit filed by Ms. Keys on November 29, 2021 against the City (No. 1:21-cv-01700-

NONE-HBK) — which Defendants oppose. The parties appeared on January 20, 2022 via 

videoconference for an informal discovery dispute hearing to address these issues. 

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 26 provides that a party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 

that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering 

the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 

access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving 

the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information need not be admissible in evidence to be 

discoverable. Id. “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less 

probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining 

the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. 

Case 1:21-cv-00286-SAB Document 30 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 6
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

III.

DISCUSSION

As noted, the discovery dispute involves Defendants’ requests to depose Helen Salinas, 

Yajaida Keys, and Juan Flores in-person, Plaintiff’s request to limit City of Visalia to only deposing 

Ms. Keys once for the two identified lawsuits against the City, and Defendants’ request for 

production of documents from Ms. Salinas.

A. Defendants’ Request to Depose Helen Salinas, Yajaida Keys, and Juan Flores 

In-Person

Defendants seek to depose Plaintiff’s witnesses in-person. At some point during prior meet 

and confer discussions, Plaintiff’s counsel appears to have consented to producing Ms. Keys inperson but currently objects to producing the witness for in-person depositions due to health 

concerns amid the current state of infectious COVID variants and increased level of positive 

COVID cases during the pandemic. 

Defendants oppose remote depositions for several reasons, arguing remotely taken 

depositions are more susceptible to abuse of the deposition process and that a deposing party would 

not be able to discern whether a deponent was utilizing outside sources or communicating with 

people off-screen which would taint the deponent’s testimony and in-person depositions are 

required to assess each deponent’s credibility. Defendants further argue Plaintiff’s COVID-related 

concerns may be assuaged because all accommodations have been made to conduct in-person 

depositions: City’s counsel are fully vaccinated; they have an ADA compliant law office with a 

large wheelchair accessible conference room; counsel is willing to socially distance during the 

depositions; counsel, staff, and the court reporter are all willing to wear masks; and the deponents 

may wear masks if they prefer. Finally, Defendants argue California law provides any party or

their attorney can choose to be in the deposition room with the deponent. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 

2025.310(b). 

In response, Plaintiff argues Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(4) allows for depositions 

to proceed remotely by videoconference. See also Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 

820CV00048JVSDEX, 2021 WL 4618601 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2021). Plaintiff argues Ms. Salinas 

Case 1:21-cv-00286-SAB Document 30 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 6
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

previously had an extended bout with COVID and is therefore afraid to contract it again; Mr. Flores 

is in a wheelchair and contracting COVID would present a number of challenges. Plaintiff’s 

counsel has additionally expressed uncomfortableness with attending an in-person deposition due 

to risk factors including age and preexisting conditions which make COVID more life-threatening. 

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that as no depositions have been taken in this matter, none of the concerns 

regarding tainted remote testimony have arisen in this case, and counsel suggests if such issues do 

arise, the parties may address them at that time. 

The Court finds the issues raised by Defendants persuasive. In-person depositions are 

crucial to assessing a witness’s potential presentation at trial, veracity, and credibility. Plaintiff’s 

concerns regarding transmissibility of COVID may be addressed through the extensive precautions 

outlined by Defense counsel. Because the discovery cut-off date is not until May 2022, the parties 

have some time to take additional measures to prevent the spread and transmission of COVID, 

including vaccination and self-quarantine if they so choose. Plaintiff’s request to conduct the 

depositions remotely is therefore DENIED. The parties shall confer privately to set deposition 

dates for the witnesses to occur at the end of March 2022, at a date and time convenient to the 

parties. 

B. Plaintiff’s Request to Limit City of Visalia to One Deposition of Yajaida Keys

On November 29, 2021, Ms. Keys filed a separate lawsuit against City of Visalia on behalf 

of her son Jordan Gutierrez, Gutierrez v. City of Visalia, 1:21-cv-01700-NONE-HBK (E.D. Cal. 

2021). Plaintiff maintains the subject matter of the Gutierrez lawsuit is the same; therefore, Ms. 

Keys should only be deposed once by City of Visalia in regard to these two lawsuits. 

Defendants dispute this characterization. They argue Ms. Keys is being deposed in the 

instant litigation as a witness, based on her observations of the City’s use of canines in the field. 

Yet in Gutierrez, Ms. Keys is a party plaintiff asserting two claims against the City and others for 

false arrest/false imprisonment and negligent infliction of emotional distress; Defendants argue the 

City should not be prejudiced by being barred from deposing Ms. Keys a second time in her 

capacity as a party plaintiff in the Gutierrez case. 

The Court agrees with Defendants. The deposition testimony Ms. Keys may provide as a 

Case 1:21-cv-00286-SAB Document 30 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 6
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

5

witness in support of Plaintiff’s Monell claim is more specific and limited than the deposition 

testimony she would be expected to provide as a party plaintiff in the second case against the City. 

Testimony regarding issues such as damages may be relevant to Ms. Keys’ deposition testimony in 

the second case that would not be relevant during the instant deposition. The Court is hesitant at 

this time to foreclose defense’s right to pursue issues that may newly arise in the second case, in 

which Keys is a party plaintiff and not just a percipient witness, nor should Defendants be delayed 

in seeking Ms. Keys’s deposition testimony relevant to the instant case now. Plaintiff’s request to 

limit Defendants to taking only one deposition of Ms. Keys as pertaining to the instant case and the 

other matter, Gutierrez v. City of Visalia, 1:21-cv-01700-NONE-HBK (E.D. Cal. 2021), is 

therefore DENIED. 

C. Request for Production of Documents from Helen Salinas 

Defendants also contend they sought production of documents from Ms. Salinas in her 

notice of deposition and subpoena, which Plaintiff objected to on the basis that “Responding Party 

has produced all non-privileged documents in her possession, custody or control, if any,” stating 

that Ms. Salinas would produce additional documents in the future, if any become available. 

Defendants maintain these objections are without merit, as Ms. Salinas is a nonparty witness with 

no obligation to supplement a document production and she has not previously produced any 

documents. Moreover, Defendants assert the documents requested in the deposition notice —

documents based on the allegations set forth in Ms. Salinas’s March 3, 2021 declaration (ECF No. 

7-2) — were not requested before and were not produced in Plaintiff’s initial disclosures. Rather, 

Defendants argue Ms. Salinas must either produce the requested documents at the time of her 

deposition or provide confirmation that she is not in possession of the documents sought. 

Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ request to either identify the documents previously 

produced by Plaintiff that originated from Ms. Salinas or to produce the requested documents in 

advance of Ms. Salinas’s deposition. Defendants’ request for production is therefore GRANTED. 

IV.

ORDER

Accordingly, based on the discussion during the informal conference, IT IS HEREBY 

Case 1:21-cv-00286-SAB Document 30 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 6
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

6

ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ request to depose Helen Salinas, Yajaida Keys, and Juan Flores inperson is GRANTED. The parties shall set deposition dates for the witnesses to 

occur at the end of March 2022, at dates and times convenient to the parties; 

2. Plaintiff’s request to limit Defendant City of Visalia to one deposition of Yajaida 

Keys for both the instant case and the Gutierrez litigation is DENIED and the Court 

declines to issue any discovery rulings or other orders with respect to the unrelated 

case, Gutierrez v. City of Visalia, at this time; and 

3. Defendants’ request for production of documents from Helen Salinas is GRANTED. 

Counsel for Plaintiff shall either identify which previously produced documents 

originated with Ms. Salinas or produce the requested documents in advance of Ms. 

Salinas’s deposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00286-SAB Document 30 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 6