Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00282/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00282-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

ex rel. BEVERLY ENGLUND,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0282 LKK JFM

vs.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Defendant’s motion for protective order came on regularly for hearing June 8,

2006. C. Brandon Wisoff and Wendy Motooka appeared for plaintiff. Martha Boersch and

Billie Salinas appeared for defendant. Upon review of the motions and the documents in support

and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, the

court FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Defendant seeks a protective order barring the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition

of custodian of records and other officers, directors and managing agents of defendant Los

Angeles County, presently noticed for June 17, 2006. Plaintiff is entitled to depose the custodian

of records. Rule 30(b)(6) permits the deposition of the county as an entity and such depositions

are routinely performed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Defendant is required to “designate one or

Case 2:04-cv-00282-LKK -JFM Document 185 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 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

2

more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its

behalf. . . . The persons so designated shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to

the organization.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Defendant’s objection that the noticed deposition(s)

would be oppressive, duplicative, or burdensome are overruled. Defendant’s motion for

protective order will be denied. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s

motion for protective order is denied.

DATED: June 8, 2006.

001; englund.oah3

Case 2:04-cv-00282-LKK -JFM Document 185 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 2