Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

TRUONG v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 2:10-cv-00506 MCE KJN. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120514517 Visitors: 4
Filed: May 10, 2012
Latest Update: May 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Presently before the court is defendants' amended motion to compel Snowzene Sharp, a nonparty witness subpoenaed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, to appear and provide testimony at Ms. Sharp's deposition in this case (Dkt. No. 33). 1 The court heard this matter on its law and motion calendar on May 10, 2012. Attorney Jeri L. Pappone appeared on behalf of defendants. No appearance was made by or on behalf of plaintiffs. Although Ms. Sha
More

ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Presently before the court is defendants' amended motion to compel Snowzene Sharp, a nonparty witness subpoenaed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, to appear and provide testimony at Ms. Sharp's deposition in this case (Dkt. No. 33).1 The court heard this matter on its law and motion calendar on May 10, 2012. Attorney Jeri L. Pappone appeared on behalf of defendants. No appearance was made by or on behalf of plaintiffs. Although Ms. Sharp did not file a written response to the motion, she appeared at the hearing and represented herself.

At the hearing, Ms. Sharp agreed to have her deposition taken as soon as possible rather than face possible contempt sanctions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e), despite her general preference not to participate in this case. Accordingly, the court denies the amended motion to compel as moot, but orders Ms. Sharp to appear and provide testimony at her forthcoming deposition. With Ms. Sharp's and Ms. Pappone's input, the court set the date and time of Ms. Sharp's deposition, which is stated below. The parties and Ms. Sharp may change the date, time, or location of this deposition only if counsel for the parties and Ms. Sharp mutually agree to such changes. As stated at the hearing, it is in the best interest of the parties not to change the date of the deposition in light of past difficulties in attempting to secure Ms. Sharp's testimony.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' amended motion to compel (Dkt. No. 33) is denied as moot.

2. Nonparty Snowzene Sharp shall appear at her deposition and provide testimony on Monday, June 11, 2012, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

3. Ms. Sharp's deposition shall take place at the offices of Longyear, O'Dea & Lavra, LLP, located at 3620 American River Drive, Suite 230, Sacramento, California 95864.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed mail a copy of this order to Snowzene Sharp at 4719 50th Avenue, Apartment 122, Sacramento, California 95823.

5. Defendants shall serve an amended notice of deposition and a copy of this order on Ms. Sharp by Certified Mail.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2. The court addresses one issue regarding the defendants' use of the U.S. Postal Service's Certified Mail services. Although defendants represent in their moving papers that their process server mailed the amended subpoena at issue to Ms. Sharp "via certified U.S. mail," their process server's declaration indicates that the amended subpoena was mailed via regular mail with a "certificate of mailing." (Compare Defs.' Memo. of P. & A. In Supp. of Mot. to Compel at 3, with Bradshaw Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. B.) Defendants shall serve this order by Certified Mail, not simply regular mail with a certificate of mailing.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer