1

Case No. 17-CV-00007-LHK 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS 

AND WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND PLAINTIFF’S ERRATA DESIGNATION

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JACQUELINE ZHANG,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY, MONTEREY 

COUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

AGENCY, and MONTEREY COUNTY 

PARKS DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00007-LHK 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ 

OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S 

DESIGNATIONS OF DEPOSITION 

TRANSCRIPTS AND WRITTEN 

DISCOVERY AND PLAINTIFF’S 

ERRATA DESIGNATION

Re: Dkt. No. 158

As Defendants’ May 28, 2021 Objection, ECF No. 158, notes, Plaintiff’s May 24, 2021 

Designation of Deposition Transcripts and Written Discovery (“Designation”), ECF No. 148, and 

Plaintiff’s May 25, 2021 Errata Designation (“Errata”), ECF No. 151, violate this Court’s 

Guidelines for Final Pretrial Conferences in Jury Trials in multiple ways. The Court’s Guidelines 

state as follows:

At least 14 days before trial, the parties shall file and serve any excerpts of deposition 

testimony or other discovery to be offered at trial, other than solely for impeachment or 

rebuttal. (A hard copy of the designated deposition testimony with page and line 

references, or the interrogatory response or admission shall be provided.)
2

Case No. 17-CV-00007-LHK 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS 

AND WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND PLAINTIFF’S ERRATA DESIGNATION

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’s Designation failed to provide any line references for Plaintiff’s 172 pages of 

designated deposition testimony. Plaintiff’s Designation failed to identify any excerpts of the 81 

pages of interrogatory responses or written responses to document production requests. Plaintiff’s 

Designation failed to provide a hard copy of the designated deposition testimony, the interrogatory 

responses, or the written responses to document production requests. 

Plaintiff’s Errata was untimely. Plaintiff’s Errata included 172 pages of deposition 

testimony, but failed to designate any line references. Plaintiff’s Errata included 31 pages of 

interrogatory responses and 50 pages of written responses to document production requests, but 

failed to identify any excerpt of these documents to be offered at trial. ECF No. 151 Exhs. D, E.

In total, Plaintiff’s Errata designated 260 pages of deposition transcripts and written discovery 

responses and failed to identify any excerpts to be offered at trial.

Despite Defendant’s Objection, Plaintiff has failed to cure these deficiencies in the last two 

weeks. Conceding her failure to comply with the Court’s Guidelines, Plaintiff’s May 31, 2021 

Response to Defendant’s Objection states: “If the Court feels that the Interrogatories should not be 

presented in Plaintiff’s case in chief due to this error, Plaintiff can reserve reliance on them to the 

cross examination and rebuttal if needed.” ECF No. 165. Because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with the Court’s Guidelines, the Court precludes Plaintiff from introducing or presenting

Defendants’ interrogatory responses or written document production responses in Plaintiff’s case 

in chief.

As to deposition transcripts, Plaintiff’s May 31, 2021 Response to Defendant’s Objection 

claims that Plaintiff will read all 172 pages of deposition transcripts in their entirety despite a 7 

hour time limit on Plaintiff’s trial evidence, which consists of both direct and cross examinations

of all witnesses. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim strains credulity. Plaintiff is required to file 

page and line references for her designated deposition testimony by 1 p.m. on June 7, 2021 or 

Plaintiff will be precluded from presenting such deposition testimony in Plaintiff’s case in chief. 

Plaintiff’s case in chief is expected to begin in the afternoon of June 7, 2021, so Plaintiff should 
3

Case No. 17-CV-00007-LHK 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS 

AND WRITTEN DISCOVERY AND PLAINTIFF’S ERRATA DESIGNATION

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

know what designated deposition testimony excerpts she intends to offer at trial.

Defendants’ Objection additionally contends that Plaintiff cannot introduce deposition 

transcript testimony for Mark Mariscal or John Guertin because they are not parties to the 

litigation, neither of them was employed by the County at the time of their deposition, and both 

will be available to testify at trial. Id. at 3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 provides that a 

deposition may be used against a party on three conditions: (1) “the party was present or 

represented at the taking of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it”; (2) “it is used to the 

extent it would be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence if the deponent were present 

and testifying”; and (3) “the use is allowed by Rule 32(a)(2) through (8).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

32(a)(1). 

As to Guertin, Plaintiff contends that she may rely on Guertin’s deposition transcript as a 

deposition of a party under Rule 32(a)(3) or as an admission of a party pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) or (C). ECF No. 165 at 3. However, Guertin is not a party to this 

litigation. Furthermore, when Guertin was deposed, he was no longer working for the County. 

Thus, Plaintiff may not rely on Guertin’s deposition transcript as a deposition of a party under 

Rule 32(a)(3) or as an admission of a party pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) or 

(C). Accordingly, Plaintiff may rely on Guertin’s deposition testimony only for purposes of 

impeachment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2) (“Any party may use a deposition to contradict or 

impeach the testimony given by the deponent as a witness, or for any other purpose allowed by the 

Federal Rules of Evidence.”). The Court will issue a separate order as to Mariscal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2021

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge