Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-22/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGIE CHERRY and ESTORIA CHERRY, on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO

(“City College”) LAWRENCE WONG, in his

official capacity as President of the Board of

Trustees, MILTON MARKS, III, in his official

capacity as Vice-President of the Board of Trustees,

DR. NATALIE BERG, JOHNNIE CARTER, JR.,

DR. ANITA GRIER, JULIO J. RAMOS, RODEL E.

RODIS, in their official capacities as members of the

Board of Trustees, and DR. PHILIP R. RAY, JR., in

his official capacity as Chancellor,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04981 WHA

ORDER RE DEPOSITION 

OF SALLY SWANSON

If the allegations in the November 14 letter are eventually proven up, serious sanctions

may be required. A formal record must be made, however. Defense counsel must file a formal

motion appending the deposition transcript by Friday, November 18, 2005. All oppositions are

due on Wednesday, November 23, 2005. No replies will be permitted. The hearing shall be in

court, (not by telephone), on NOVEMBER 28, 2005 AT 9:00 A.M. All counsel must be present. 

Ms. Swanson and her counsel must be present. Defense counsel shall immediately serve this

order on Ms. Swanson’s counsel. The Court lacks sufficient information to relieve (or not

relieve) defense counsel of the duty to produce Mr. Lauser or Mr. Goldstein for deposition. The

Court cannot take Ms. Darmagnac’s word in an unsworn, one-sided letter. If she refuses to

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 383 Filed 11/15/05 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

produce the witnesses, she does so at her peril. If, on the other hand, her allegations are proven

out, she will be vindicated. If her allegations are not substantially proven out, then she will be

facing sanctions herself. Ms. Darmagnac must decide whether she has provable grounds for

running the risk of violating the order dated November 9, 2005, by not producing those

witnesses. We will find out whether she can prove her allegations on November 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 383 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 2