Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02405/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02405-23/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City and County of San Francisco
Defendant
James Ellis Johnson
Plaintiff
United States of America
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

JAMES ELLIS JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02405 JD (NJV) 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S 

DISCOVERY MOTIONS

Dkt. Nos. 191, 192, 194, 195, 202, 203

On July 13, 2015, District Judge Donato referred this case to the undersigned “to address 

any discovery disputes or other issues that may arise in the case moving forward on a prompt and 

informal basis to the extent appropriate.” (Doc. 170.) On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed 

motions at docket nos. 191, 192, 194, and 195. Pursuant to the court’s order, Defendant filed a 

letter brief addressing those motions on October 1, 2015. (Doc. 200.) In that letter brief, 

Defendant also addressed Plaintiff’s further discovery motion filed October 2, 2015. (Doc. 203.) 

On October 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s letter brief. (Doc. 208) Having 

carefully considered the parties’ papers, the court rules as follows on Plaintiff’s motions.

Docket No. 191 –Motion to Quash

In this motion, Plaintiff seeks to quash subpoenas directed to Dr. Tolbert J. Small and Dr. 

Kirk L. Jensen. On September 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw his motion to quash. 

(Doc. 202.) Plaintiff's motion to withdraw his motion to quash is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion 

to quash is accordingly DENIED as moot.

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 212 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Docket No. 192 – Motion for Court Order

Plaintiff seeks a court order to serve a subpoena on the City and County of San Francisco 

for the production of documents and the production of tangible things. The court issued a 

subpoena for the production of these items on September 11, 2015. (Doc. 189.) Accordingly, a 

court order for the issuance of such a subpoena is unnecessary. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order 

is DENIED as moot.

Docket No. 194 – Motion to Compel

Plaintiff seeks to compel Dr. Hong Yu to answer written deposition questions. Plaintiff’s 

motion does not comply with the procedure for written deposition questions set forth in Rule 31, 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the procedure set forth in Rule 31(b), pre-determined 

written questions are read by court reporter, who records the deponent’s answers, and prepares a 

transcript. A deponent cannot be compelled to simply respond to “written deposition questions” 

without following the deposition procedure established in Rule 31(b).

Plaintiff’s questions cannot be construed as written interrogatories. Dr. Yu is not a party to 

this action, and cannot be compelled to respond to interrogatories under Rule 33, Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED on the merits.

Docket No. 195- Motion to Compel

Plaintiff seeks to obtain photographs of a VA police car and a holding cell. District Judge 

Donato denied Plaintiff’s previous motion to compel these items in his order of July 27, 2015, 

finding that they “are of very doubtful relevance to this case, and the burden of requiring 

defendant to devote the resources needed to set up the pictures substantially outweighs their 

questionable utility.” (Doc. 181.) Plaintiff has not identified any “material difference in fact or 

law” or the emergence of new material facts or a change of law” that would support 

reconsideration of Judge Donato’s order under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(1)-(2). The court finds no 

merit to this portion of Plaintiff’s motion.

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 212 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Plaintiff refers to “the fake deposition answers” of Lucas C. Coulter, VA Criminal 

Investigator. Defendant, however, provides as Exhibit C to its letter brief Coulter’s Responses 

and Objections, which are verified under penalty of perjury. (Doc. 200, page 33.)

Plaintiff seeks evidence regarding phone calls. In his Order of July 27, 2015, Judge 

Donato stated, “Johnson believes a tape recording exists for his phone call with Officer Cowin in 

February 2012. Defendant is order to state whether a recording exists and to provide a copy to 

Johnson if it does.” (Doc. 181.) Defendant provided that information to Plaintiff in its Response 

and Objections to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production and Inspection dated July 10, 2015. 

Defendant provides an excerpt of the Response and Objections as Exhibit D to its letter brief 

wherein Defendant asserts that it has conducted a reasonably diligent search and has located no 

responsive documents. (Doc 200, p. 38.) As Defendant explains in its letter brief, Criminal 

Investigator Coulter stated in his Responses and Objections that the only recorded line is the 

police dispatch line, which is the line that receives emergency and non-emergency calls for the VA 

police. The other phone lines in the security station are not recorded. (Doc. 200, page 27.)

Plaintiff seeks evidence regarding the existence of the police car that was used to transport 

him to San Francisco County Jail. Defendant’s written Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s 

request for production number 17 provides: “The police cars used by the VA police at the San 

Francisco Medical Center are leased. The police car that transported plaintiff was returned in 

2014 and is no longer available. The car was either a 2008 or 2009 Police Package Dodge 

Charger.” (Doc. 200, p. 10.) The court finds no basis for Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant has 

failed to produce evidence under its control. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is without legal or 

factual basis. Plaintiff's motion to compel and request for sanctions are DENIED on the merits.

Docket No. 203 - Motion to Compel

Plaintiff seeks the issuance of subpoenas to compel responses to five additional sets of 

"written deposition questions" similar to those addressed to Dr. Yu. Defendant states that despite 

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 212 Filed 10/16/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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 fact that Plaintiff's requests were not proper under Rule 31, nor were they proper 

interrogatories under Rule 33, Defendant obtained verified responses from the requested 

individuals to the 61 questions posed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff's request for the issuance of subpoenas 

to compel these responses is therefore DENIED as moot.

___________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02405-JD Document 212 Filed 10/16/15 Page 4 of 4