Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-mc-00088/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-mc-00088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ryan Allen
Defendant
Jane Doe
Plaintiff
Randall Hampton
Defendant
Derrick Rose
Defendant

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DERRICK ROSE, RANDALL 

HAMPTON, RYAN ALLEN, DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-mc-00088 TLN AC

ORDER

Defendant Rose’s Motion to Compel the depositions of plaintiff’s mother and father came 

on for hearing on this court’s regular law and motion hearing of June 6, 2016. Roderick 

MacKenzie of MacKenzie & Brody specially appeared for plaintiff; Laura Robbins of Baute 

Crochetiere & Gilford appeared for defendants. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The underlying action is proceeding in the Central District of California, Case No. CV 15-

7503-MWF(JCx). Plaintiff seeks damages for sexual battery, gender violence, intentional and 

negligent infliction of emotional distress, and related torts. ECF No. 1-2 at 5-291 (Exhibit A to 

Robbins Decl.) (Complaint). The instant Motion is brought in this court as a miscellaneous 

 1 Citations to court documents refer to the page numbers assigned by the court’s electronic 

docketing system.

Case 2:16-mc-00088-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 06/09/16 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

matter because the two witnesses sought for deposition reside here. The depositions were 

originally noticed for March 23, 2016. Neither of the deponents objected to or moved to quash

the depositions, but neither appeared at the place and time specified in the deposition notices. 

Defendants filed these Motions to Compel on May 5, 2016, and refiled them on May 9, 2016 in 

order to conform to Eastern District of California Local Rules. 

The parties have informed the court that the discovery cut-off directed by the Central 

District of California is June 17, 2016, so time is of the essence.

THE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

On March 23, 2016, the very date for which the depositions had been scheduled, 

plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the subpoenas on various grounds that were discussed at the 

hearing and will be addressed below. 

On April 4, 2016 defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to the deponents 

directly, as they did not purport to be represented by counsel. Deponents’ son responded to the 

meet and confer letter by telephone on April 5, 2016 and he and defendant’s counsel agreed that 

the depositions would take the depositions at deponents’ residence as the Mother was confined to 

a wheelchair. The depositions were not, however, taken and the Motions at issue here were filed.

Defendant Rose stated he wishes to question plaintiff’s parents regarding any changes in 

plaintiff’s demeanor and well-being from the time of the incidents of which she complaints to the 

present, and to develop facts about the cultural and religious tradition in which plaintiff was 

raised. Defendant contends that the allegations of the Complaint put both subjects squarely in 

issue. Plaintiff seeks to prevent the depositions on the ground that her parents are unaware of the 

events disclosed in her complaint, and that the real purpose of the deposition is to develop facts 

regarding plaintiff’s sexual history. 

STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) makes clear that the scope of discovery is broad,

and a party may inquire into “any non-privileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense

and proportional to the needs of the case.” Information within this scope of discovery need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id. 

Case 2:16-mc-00088-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 06/09/16 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 provides that a party may depose any person upon 

notice, and that the notice may be accompanied by a subpoena duces tecum designating 

documents to be produced at the deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a), (b). A deponent’s attendance 

may be compelled by subpoena issued under Rule 45. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

I. Defendant’s Request To Seal

The copies of the proposed deposition subpoenas attached to defendant’s motion, ECF 

Nos. 2-1 at 37, 2-2 at 37, are redacted in grudging deference to plaintiff’s position that she is 

entitled to anonymity in this case.2 Defendant has filed two documents titled Notice of Request 

To Seal Document(s), ECF Nos. 8, 9, which indicate that defendant seeks to file the unredacted 

versions of the subpoenas under seal. These requests do not comply with Local Rule 141, which 

requires that a party seeking to file documents under seal must not only file a notice that sealing is 

sought, but also contemporaneously submit to the court (1) a Request to Seal which provides 

statutory or other authority for sealing, along with other specified information; (2) a proposed 

order; and (3) all documents covered by the request. In this case, the unredacted subpoenas 

should have been provided to the court. Defendants have provided none of the required materials.

In any event, defendant’s filing of the redacted subpoenas is governed by Local Rule 

140(b), which provides that a party seeking to redact the names of individuals other than minors 

must obtain prior leave of court. In the interests of judicial efficiency, the court will construe 

defendant’s requests to seal as requests to redact under Local Rule 140(b). So construed, the 

requests will be granted nunc pro tunc.

II. Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Oppose The Motion

The plaintiff has no standing to object to the deposition subpoenas at issue. Under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B), the right to object lies with the “person commanded.” This 

limitation is reiterated in Rule 45(e)(2)(A), which allows the “person withholding” to expressly 

make a claim of a need for protection or to claim privilege. A party to a lawsuit typically has no 

 2 That issue, which is vigorously contested by defendants, is presently before the presiding 

district judge.

Case 2:16-mc-00088-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 06/09/16 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

standing to object to a subpoena directed to a non-party in the absence of a privilege. Langford v. 

Chrysler Motors Corp., 513 F.2d 1121, 1126 (2nd Cir. 1975); see also Brown v. Braddick, 595 

F.2d 961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979). 

The plaintiff here is neither the person commanded to appear nor the person withholding

discovery. Accordingly, her putative objections are without effect. Plaintiff may have had 

standing to seek a protective order or moved to quash, if she could meet the privilege 

requirement, but the objections she did file were not timely under Rule 45(D)(2)(B) (any 

objection “must be served before the earlier pf the time specified for compliance 14 days after the 

subpoena is served.”) (emphasis added). The intended deponents have not objected to the 

depositions, sought a protective order, or appeared to oppose the motion to compel. Accordingly, 

the motion may be granted as unopposed.

III. Plaintiff’s Objections Lack Merit

In any event, plaintiff’s objections lack merit. Assuming without deciding that the 

objections are properly before the court, they are overruled for the following reasons.

A. Improper Purpose

Plaintiff speculates that the purpose for the depositions of plaintiff’s parents is to harass 

her by needlessly exposing her elderly parents to the facts of this case, thereby dissuading her 

from pursing this suit, or to attempt to draw attention away from the fact that defendants are serial 

sex offenders and rapists. ECF 11 at 3:13-19. 

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendant has identified permissible purposes for the 

depositions. Plaintiff has asserted emotional distress claims. ECF No. 1-2 (Complaint) at 5. 

Defendant therefore wishes to examine her parents about any changes in her behavior and 

demeanor following the date of the alleged assault, as well as other potential causes of her alleged 

emotional distress. ECF 13 at 6:2-3. Defendant also wants to flesh out the facts regarding 

plaintiff’s conservative religious upbringing, which has allegedly magnified her emotional 

distress. ECF 13 at 3:13-25. Plaintiff has placed these matters in issue.3 The depositions 

 3 See ECF 1-2 (Complaint) at 6:14-18; 8:19-21; 8:22-9:3;17:1-11; 18:27-19:2; 20:1-5; 23:25-28; 

24:27-25:2; 26:5-6; 27:4-8.

Case 2:16-mc-00088-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 06/09/16 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

therefore seek information relevant to the claims and potential defenses. 

The undersigned concludes that the defendant seeks discoverable information, and the 

depositions therefore are not for an improper purpose.

B. Right to Privacy

Plaintiff contends that she has a right to privacy as it pertains to her religious beliefs, 

citing Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). She argues that 

defendants seek to invade her religious privacy by asking her parents about her religious beliefs. 

ECF 10 at 4:25-5:4. But defendants have made clear that they do not intend to question the 

deponents about their religious beliefs per se, or those of their daughter, but rather wish to 

question the deponents about plaintiff’s upbringing and experiences as a young person and how 

those experiences and her “traditional, religious” upbringing and related sexual mores have 

affected her. ECF 13 at 18-25. These lines of inquiry are relevant to plaintiff’s emotional distress 

claims as framed in her complaint. This objection is therefore overruled.

C. Past Sexual Behavior

Plaintiff argues that the depositions are barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 412(a), which 

limits the admission of a victim’s sexual behavior or sexual predisposition. ECF 10 at 5:6-10. 

This argument fails for several reasons. 

First, defendant’s representations regarding the purpose of the deposition of plaintiff’s 

parents, as discussed above, do not indicate any intention to examine the deponents regarding the 

details of plaintiff’s sexual history or predisposition. 

Second, plaintiff has put her sexual behavior in issue through her complaint. By making 

specific factual allegations regarding the sexual mores of her family, her own sexual history and 

experiences, and her emotional health, plaintiff’s complaint has rendered these subject areas 

relevant.

4

 In any event, plaintiff’s own allegations undermine her sexual privacy argument.

Third, Rule 412 does not create an absolute bar to the use of a victim’s sexual history. 

Rather, it specifies both prohibited and permissible uses of such evidence. Evidentiary rulings are 

 4 See supra n.3; see also ECF No. 1-2 at 9:4-17.

Case 2:16-mc-00088-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 06/09/16 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

the province of the presiding district judge, who will make them if and when this case progresses 

to the stage where such rulings are required.

Fourth, the Rules of Evidence have no bearing on the scope of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1) specifically provides that “[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” 

For all these reasons, this objection is overruled.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Requests to Seal Documents, ECF Nos. 8, 9, are construed as requests 

to file redacted documents pursuant to Local Rule 140(b). So construed, the requests are granted 

nunc pro tunc to the filing date of the Motions to Compel;

2. Defendants’ Motions to Compel, ECF Nos. 1, 2, are GRANTED; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide unredacted, fully executed copies of 

the subpoenas filed with the court to defendants’ counsel upon request. The subpoenas shall 

specify a date for the depositions, to be held in the home of the deponents, at a day and time that 

will permit those depositions to be completed before the discovery cut-off date of June 17, 2016.

DATED: June 9, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00088-TLN-AC Document 16 Filed 06/09/16 Page 6 of 6