Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05548/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05548-5/pdf.json

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

---

ORDER – No. 17-cv-05548-RS (LB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

DAVID KHAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JUSTIN ROGERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05548-RS (LB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

Re: ECF No. 117

Plaintiffs David Khan and Nay Zar Tun Kyaw filed a motion to compel Inspector Darryl 

Holcombe of the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office to respond to their 

interrogatories.1The court denies the motion.

A party may serve interrogatories only on other parties to the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(a)(1). They may not serve interrogatories on non-parties. See id. (Instead, a party may take 

discovery of a non-party by subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) Inspector Holcombe is not a party 

to this litigation. The plaintiffs therefore cannot compel him to respond to interrogatories.2

 

1

Pls. Mot. to Compel – ECF No. 117. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2 Contrary to the plaintiffs’ suggestion, id. at 2 (¶ 5), there is no general obligation of public employees 

to respond to interrogatories in litigations to which they are not a party.

Case 3:17-cv-05548-RS Document 118 Filed 12/28/18 Page 1 of 2
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05548-RS (LB) 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

The plaintiffs claim that “[d]ue to the limitation of the courtroom and security regulations, 

plaintiffs cannot proceed the deposition [sic] as we require that plaintiffs used the interrogatory 

questions to obtain information including to Sr. Inspector Darryl Holocombe [sic] of Contra Costa 

County.”

3

It is not entirely clear to what deposition the plaintiffs are referring. To the extent that 

the plaintiffs are claiming that they cannot depose Inspector Holcombe because of courtroom 

limitations or security regulations, they have not supported their claim. Nothing prevents the 

plaintiffs from taking depositions, subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all orders of 

the court. To the extent that the plaintiffs are claiming that they cannot sit for their own 

depositions until they obtain discovery from Inspector Holcombe, their claim is meritless. The 

plaintiffs do not have a right to unilaterally refuse to sit for properly-noticed depositions or to 

condition their depositions on their obtaining discovery from a third party. The court repeats its 

warning to the plaintiffs that if they do not sit for properly-noticed depositions, they may be 

subject to sanctions, including terminating sanctions (dismissal of their case for failure to comply 

with their discovery obligations).4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2018

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

3

Id. at 1 (¶ 2).

4

See Order – ECF No. 114 at 5 (previously warning plaintiffs that they must sit for properly-noticed 

depositions or risk being sanctioned).

Case 3:17-cv-05548-RS Document 118 Filed 12/28/18 Page 2 of 2