Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01409/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01409-3/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

PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, INC., a )

California corporation; SONA )

VARTANIAN, an individual, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

)

SCOTT SILVA, in his individual capacity; )

TOM WILSON, in his individual capacity; )

E. ESSEGIAN, in his individual capacity; )

and DOES 1-25, inclusively, )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:09 cv 1409 LJO-GSA

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Documents 50, 51, and 53)

I. Introduction

On June 24, 2010, Plaintiff, Sona Vartanian (“Plaintiff”), filed the instant Motion for a

Protective Order to prevent the taking of her deposition on June 29, 2010. Defendant Essegian

(“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Compel the taking of the deposition, as well as a Motion to

Compel the authorization of the release of her psychiatric records. The matter was heard on July

2, 2010, on shortened time before the Honorable Gary S. Austin, United States Magistrate Judge. 

Michael Linden personally appeared on behalf of Defendant Essegian. Richard Hamlish

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 67 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 8
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

 The initial complaint was filed on August 11, 2009. 1

2

appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs by telephone, and Oliver Lewis appeared on behalf of

Defendants Scott Silva and Tom Wilson also by telephone.

II. Background

The case is proceeding on the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on October 20,

2009. (Doc. 20). In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that on August 10, 2009, law enforcement 1

officers, Scott Silva, Tom Wilson, and E. Essegian conducted an illegal search of her business,

Pacific Marine Center. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Silva gave false information

in the affidavit of support for the search warrant, that officers searched and seized items and

areas not identified in the search warrant, and the items seized were not recorded on the property

receipt. Plaintiff contends that her business was adversely effected as a result of the search and

seizure. She alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the Constitution. Plaintiff contends the actions were done with the intention of

inflicting mental pain, oppression, and emotional distress. Plaintiff requests $10,000,000.00 in

general damages against each defendant for each cause of action; $10,000,000.00 in punitive and

exemplary damages against each defendant for each cause of action; attorney’s fees; costs; and

other just relief.

On June 14, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) which adds

several new defendants from the Department of Motor Vehicles, as well as a defendant from the

City of Fresno. The SAC also includes several allegations regarding Plaintiff’s emotional

distress. Defendants have filed a motion to strike the SAC because Plaintiff did not request leave

to amend. (Docs. 48 and 49). The hearing for this motion is scheduled to be heard on July 30,

2010. 

The scheduling order in the instant case was issued on February 4, 2010. (Doc. 41). The

following deadlines were established:

• Non-expert discovery cut-off: July 10, 2010

• Expert Disclosure: July 15, 2010

• Supplemental Expert Disclosure: August 1, 2010

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 67 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 8
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

• Expert Discovery Cut-Off: September 1, 2010

• Dispositive and Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: October 15, 2010

• Pretrial Conference: November 22, 2010

• Trial: January 10, 2011

The parties filed a motion to vacate the scheduling order in light of the filing of the SAC

which was denied on June 15, 2010 by The Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill for a lack of

showing of good cause. (Doc. 45). On June 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective

Order to prevent the taking of her deposition which was scheduled for June 29, 2010. (Doc. 50). 

On June 25, 2010, Defendant, Essegian filed a Motion to Compel the taking of the deposition, as

well as an Ex Parte Application to Hear the Motion on Shortened Time. (Doc. 51). On June 28,

2010, Defendant also filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s psychiatric records and also filed an

Ex Parte Application to Hear the Motion on Shortened Time. (Doc. 53). 

On June 29 and 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Ex Parte Request to Shorten

Time, as well as a response to the Motions to Compel. (Doc. 55 and 58). Similarly, on June 29,

2010, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order, and two Replies

to Plaintiff’s oppositions. (Docs. 56. 57 and 60). The hearing was held on July 2, 2010. 

III. The Motions

At issue in the instant motions are Plaintiff’s alleged failure to attend her deposition and

her refusal to give authorization for the release of her psychiatric records. Defendant requested

that the Motions to Compel be heard on shortened time because the non-expert discovery

deadline expires on July 10, 2010. Defense counsel contends that he sent Plaintiff a subpoena on

June 16, 2010, noticing the deposition for June 29, 2010. On June 22, 2010, Defendant was

advised by Plaintiff’s counsel that Plaintiff would not be appearing at the deposition due to a

doctor’s order. 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not established good cause for failing to appear at the

deposition. First, the doctor’s reports provided by Plaintiff provide no explanation as to how a

deposition would be irreversibly damaging to Ms. Vartanian’s mental heath. Second, there is no

information indicating when Plaintiff would be available for a deposition. Finally, this case

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 67 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 8
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

involves the search of a business which cannot be characterized as a traumatic event such as, for

example, an accidental death. Therefore, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff should give her

deposition and keep the litigation moving forward so that there is no prejudice to Defendant. 

Defendant also seeks access to Plaintiff’s psychiatric records on the basis that Plaintiff’s

SAC contains new allegations related to the emotional distress claims including that she is under

the care of several mental health providers and she has recurring nightmares. It is also alleged

that Plaintiff was recently taken to the hospital as a result of Defendant’s actions and she has

suffered extreme emotional distress. Plaintiff’s attorney also represented that new facts were

alleged in the SAC because they were not remembered by Plaintiff until she had sessions with

her mental health doctors. Plaintiff contends that she blocked out several of these facts but

therapy is now helping her remember them. As a result, Defendant alleges Plaintiff has put her

mental health at issue. Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $577.50 for the

Motion to Compelling Plaintiff’s Deposition and $660.00 for the Motion to Compel the

production of her psychiatric documents. In the alterative, Defendant requests that the

scheduling order be modified accordingly so that discovery can be completed.

In opposition to Defendant’s motion, and in support of her request for a protective order,

Plaintiff’s counsel argues that on June 22, 2010, Dr. Daryn Reicherter, M.D., a psychiatrist at

Stanford University, called him and stated Plaintiff should not have her deposition taken at this

time. Plaintiff also produced a letter from Dr. Reicherter stating that if Plaintiff’s deposition was

taken, it could have a devastating affect on her condition and “set back any progress she might

have made in treatment.” (Doc. 62 at pg. 4). Plaintiff also attached a letter from her doctor, Pam

Janda, M.D., whom she began seeing on September 11, 2009. (Doc. 50 at pgs. 7-10). In this

letter, Dr. Janda does not address the deposition in any way but diagnoses Plaintiff with

hypertension and posttraumatic stress syndrome, as well as anxiety and depression. Id. Plaintiff

argues that the she is unable to be deposed based on these medical conditions. She also opposes

the taking of her deposition because attached to the deposition notice was a request for the

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 67 Filed 07/09/10 Page 4 of 8
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

 Plaintiff also makes several arguments related to the specific request for the production of documents, 2

however, the request for the production of documents is not at issue in this motion will not be addressed in this

decision.

5

production of documents and she was only given thirteen days notice. Plaintiff argues under 2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, thirty days notice is required for a production of document request. Finally,

Plaintiff objects to signing a release for her psychiatric records based on the psychotherapist

privilege. If the records need to be produced, Plaintiff requests that the Court conduct an in

camera review to determine whether the privilege applies. 

In reply, Defendant argues that none of the above explanations excuse Plaintiff from

appearing at her deposition. The production of documents request listed on the notice of

deposition relates to discovery requests that were previously made on April 19, 2010, and only

required that Plaintiff bring documents that had not already been produced. Additionally, other

than citing Jaffe v. Redmond, 518 U.S.1 (1996), Plaintiff has not cited to any legal authority

supporting the contention that she has not waived the psychotherapist privilege given the new

allegations in the SAC and her refusal to attend the deposition.

IV. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Deposition

Plaintiff seeks a protective order to prevent the taking of her deposition pursuant to Rule

26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:

A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a

protective order in the court where the action is pending - or as an alternative on

matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition

will be taken. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in

good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort

to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue

an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression,

or undue burden or expense . . .

Protective orders provide a safeguard for parties and other persons in light of the

otherwise broad reach of discovery. United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 368-369 (9th Cir.

1982).

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 67 Filed 07/09/10 Page 5 of 8
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

In order to establish good cause for issuance of a protective order, the party seeking

protection bears the burden of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective

order is granted. See Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.

1992) (holding that broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or

articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test); see also San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v.

United States Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that to gain a protective

order the party must make a particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual

document). In determining whether good cause exits for the protective order, the Court must

balance the interests in allowing discovery against the relative burdens to the parties and non

parties. In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings, 669 F.2d 620, 623 (C.A. Okl. 1982).

Here, Plaintiff has not established good cause for a protective order based on the limited

information she has provided regarding her emotional state. The records submitted by Plaintiff

from Dr. Janda dated June 14, 2010, indicates that as of June 4, 2010, Plaintiff had not yet seen a

mental health provider despite Dr. Janda referring her to a psychiatrist on October 30, 2009. 

(Doc. 50 at pg. 8). Moreover, correspondence to Mr. Linden from Plaintiff’s counsel dated

June 24, 2010, indicates that Dr. Reicherter could not give an accurate assessment of when

Plaintiff could be deposed until he had a more definitive diagnosis and prognosis. (Doc. 51 at pg.

60). This suggests that Dr. Reicherter has not yet diagnosed Plaintiff. Finally, Plaintiff has not

indicated when she will be able to participate in her deposition. This case is set for trial in

January 2011. Given these circumstances, the Court will not extend these proceedings

indefinitely. Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the lack of thirty day notice for the deposition and

the accompanying document requests is moot since the thirty days will have passed prior to the

taking of the deposition. 

Counsel have indicated that there are ongoing disputes regarding the production of

document requests that accompanied the notice of deposition. The parties are advised that it is

unlikely that the trial date in this matter will be continued. Counsel shall meet and confer to

resolve this conflict and are advised that if a Motion to Compel is filed, the parties will be

required to appear at a hearing in person to resolve the dispute. 

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 67 Filed 07/09/10 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Psychiatric Records

Defendant’s Motion to Compel the release of Plaintiff’s psychiatric records is denied. 

Defendant’s arguments for the release of the records are based on the SAC. However, a motion

to strike the SAC is pending. There are no allegations of emotional distress in the FAC which is

the operative pleading governing these proceedings. Therefore at this juncture, Plaintiff’s

psychiatric records are not relevant.

Sanctions

Defendant has requested that sanctions be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to attend the

deposition which necessitated the filing of the Motions to Compel. Rule 37(a)(5)(A) provides

that if a motion to compel is granted, the Court must require the party whose conduct

necessitated the filing of the motion to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses in making the

motion including attorney fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(5)(A). Similarly, if the motion to compel is

denied, the Court shall require the moving party to pay reasonable expenses. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(5)(B). However, the court must not order payment if the movant filed the motion before

attempting in good faith to obtain the discovery without a court order, if the opposing party’s

non-disclosure, response or objection was substantially justified, or other circumstances make an

award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(5)(A)(i-iii). 

In this instance, sanctions are not warranted since all of the parties’ actions were

substantially justified given the circumstances. Although sanctions are not imposed for purposes

of these motions, counsel are cautioned that sanctions will be imposed under Rule 37(5) for

future Motions to Compel if the parties do not meet and confer in good faith, or if the requests

and/or failure to produce the requested information is not substantially justified. 

V. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED and

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall appear for

her deposition on July 15, 2010 and July 16, 2010. Plaintiff shall not be questioned for a period

longer than four hours without the consent of Plaintiff’s counsel. The non-expert discovery

deadline is extended for this purpose, as well as for the outstanding discovery requests served by

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 67 Filed 07/09/10 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Defendant Essegian on April 19, 2010 only. Defendant’s Motion to Compel the release of

Plaintiff’s psychiatric records is DENIED. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the

disputes surrounding Defendant’s discovery requests no later than July 10, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 9, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

cf0di0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01409-LJO-JLT Document 67 Filed 07/09/10 Page 8 of 8