Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06556-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Holly Louen
Plaintiff
Brian Twedt
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLY LOUEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

)

FRESNO POLICE OFFICER BRIAN )

TWEDT; THE CITY OF FRESNO, )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:04-cv-06556-REC-SMS

INFORMATIONAL ORDER

FOLLOWING TELEPHONIC

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

CONFERENCE; ORDER RE:

MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDERS 

(Docs. 15, 34)

The Court sua sponte set a telephonic discovery dispute

conference to address both defendant Brian Twedt’s motion for a

protective order to allow defendant to be present during the

deposition of plaintiff and preventing the videotaping of

defendant’s deposition by plaintiff (Doc. 15), as well as

plaintiff’s urgent motion for a protective order re: multiple

depositions unilaterally noticed by defendant Brian Twedt (Doc.

34). Kevin G. Little, Esq., appeared telephonically on behalf of

plaintiff. Gregory L. Myers, Esq., of Myers & Mayfield appeared

telephonically on behalf of Police Officer Brian Twedt. James D.

Weakley, Esq., of Weakley, Ratliff, Arendt & McGuire, LLP, appeared

telephonically on behalf of the City of Fresno.

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 10/24/05 Page 1 of 5
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

A. Defendant Twedt’s Motion For Protective Order (Doc. 15):

Defendant’s motion came on regularly for hearing on June

24, 2005, but the Court determined an in-chambers conversation with

counsel, off the record, would be a more beneficial way of

resolving the conflict, particularly in light of the fact the Court

had absolutely no independent evidence, separate and apart from the

parties’ own arguments, that the videotaping of defendant’s

deposition would be harmful to him in some way. It was agreed on

that date that defendant’s counsel would obtain a written statement

from defendant’s treating psychologist regarding the risks to her

patient if Mr. Twedt’s deposition was videotaped. See Fanelli v.

Centenary College, 211 FRD 268, 271 (D NJ 2002).

Thereafter, on or about August 9, 2005, the Court

received, directly from Dr. Elizabeth B. Maines, a letter setting

forth her opinions why she felt her patient’s mental health

symptoms would be worsened if he is required to be videotaped

during a deposition. The letter was reviewed in camera and will be

filed under seal with the Clerk’s Office. However, and without

revealing all the contents of the letter, Dr. Maines opined about

“Brian’s fear that the video would be used for other purposes by

individuals who have reportedly exhibited unrelenting harassment of

Officer Twedt and his family. He stated that he is fearful that

opposing counsel will utilize ‘parts’ of his deposition (out of

context) to further discredit him and or [sic] place he and his

family at risk.”

After further informal discussion, this Court informed

all counsel, and it is therefore ORDERED, that defendant Twedt’s

deposition can be videotaped. However, it is further ORDERED that

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 5
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

no copies of the videotape may be made by any counsel in this

lawsuit, and they are to purchase a copy of the videotaped

deposition directly from the professional performing the

videotaping at the deposition. Counsel are not to give their copy

of the videotape to their client(s) for personal viewing outside

the presence of counsel, and clients are to view the videotaped

deposition, if at all, only for purposes of preparation of

litigation in this, and only this, action. Counsel, may, however,

give the videotape to any retained experts in this lawsuit for

review. At the conclusion of this action, all copies of the

videotaped deposition are to be destroyed. A VIOLATION OF THIS

PROTECTIVE ORDER SHALL RESULT IN AN IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

The setting and taking of the deposition of defendant

Twedt shall have priority over any other depositions set after

September 15, 2005, the date of this informal discovery dispute

conference.

At the in-chambers meeting with counsel, it was also

agreed that plaintiff can be present at defendant’s deposition as

long as she can be placed in a position that she can hear the

proceedings but is not visible to defendant and vice versa.

B. Plaintiff’s Urgent Motion For Protective Order

Re: Multiple Depositions Unilaterally Noticed

By Defendant Brian Twedt (Doc. 34):

Simply put, this dispute surrounds defendant Twedt’s

allegedly setting of a number of depositions without date

concurrence by plaintiff’s counsel and/or counsel for the City of

Fresno, Mr. Weakley. Mr. Meyers argued that he and his staff

attempted on a number of occasions to get date agreements from Mr.

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 10/24/05 Page 3 of 5
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

Little’s office. Mr. Little claimed that he and/or members of his

law office communicated on several occasions that he, Mr. Little,

had serious health problems, including being hospitalized at one

point in New York, and that going ahead with the scheduling of

depositions was wholly inappropriate. In fact, at least one

deposition did take place, even with the knowledge that this motion

had been filed. Mr. Meyers made it clear that it was his opinion

Mr. Little should have someone in his law office available to

attend depositions in his/Little’s stead. Mr. Little explained

that his only other attorney, Ms. Samya Burney, has as her major

legal responsibilities appeals and other felony criminal matters,

and that it was presumptuous of Mr. Meyers to assume that Ms.

Burney was available to handle any and all functions for Mr. Little

in his absence.

The Court agrees with Mr. Little as to that point: 

“Local culture” has been to trust the word of counsel when setting

forth explanations, excuses, and requests for tolerance regarding

discovery absent good cause, based on bad experiences, to do so. 

Acknowledging Mr. Meyers’ argument that the discovery deadlines are

rapidly approaching and there were gaps in responses to his

inquiries of Mr. Little, nonetheless counsel know they can work

with the Court to extend deadlines if needs be, again for good

cause. Mr. Little’s hospitalization and health problems, set forth

in letters to defense counsel, appear to qualify as good cause

here. 

During the telephonic discovery dispute conference,

differences were aired as to the number of depositions needed and

when they could be scheduled. Mr. Little clarified that he

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 10/24/05 Page 4 of 5
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

ultimately probably did not need or want all of the percipient

witnesses he listed in his FRCP §26(a)(1) disclosures. Counsel

agreed to meet and confer regarding the individuals that needed to

be deposed, and, further, all three counsel agreed to coordinate

their calendars, taking into account Mr. Weakley’s trial schedule

and other issues, to set depositions. 

Counsel are ORDERED to meet and confer, agree which

witnesses are likely to be called to testify at trial, and

coordinate the setting of depositions with all counsels’ calendars.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06556-OWW -SMS Document 40 Filed 10/24/05 Page 5 of 5