Gonzalez v. Ahern

Background

The plaintiffs submitted four joint discovery-letter briefs seeking additional depositions. The case was filed in November 2019. The court’s pretrial schedule initially set a May 1, 2022 fact-discovery deadline and required depositions to be noticed at least 30 days before that deadline. The court later extended the fact-discovery deadline to October 16, 2023, and then granted a 30-day extension for properly noticed depositions.

On October 17, 2023, the plaintiffs served 37 deposition notices. The notices were late and exceeded the default limit of ten depositions without agreement or court permission. The court nevertheless allowed 15 depositions and required the plaintiffs to identify the depositions they wanted to take. The parties later stipulated regarding the plaintiffs’ remaining depositions, which were to be completed by December 22, 2023.

Rulings on the Discovery Disputes

Wellpath depositions

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to require Wellpath to produce a witness on all topics in their Rule 30(b)(6) notice. Rule 30(b)(6) allows a party to designate an organization to provide a witness about specified topics. The court found that, in their current form, the disputed topics’ possible relevance was outweighed by the burden on Wellpath at that late stage of discovery. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not explained the relevance of topics such as record-retention policies or hiring and retention policies involving facilities other than Santa Rita Jail.

The court also denied the request for an additional deposition of the current Medical Director for Santa Rita Jail or Wellpath’s Regional Medical Director. The court found no cause, and no good cause, to permit a 16th untimely deposition.

County designee Lieutenant Pickett

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a new deposition of Lieutenant Pickett, the County’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee on jail food service, or an order limiting the County to the “four corners” of his transcript. The court found that the plaintiffs did not identify the specific testimony they considered inadequate, the deposition topics Pickett allegedly could not address, or the relevant transcript pages. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that Pickett was inadequately prepared or knowledgeable about any particular topic.

The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions concerning Pickett’s deposition.

County designee Lieutenant Atienza

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a new deposition of Lieutenant Atienza, the County’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee concerning medical care at the jail, or an order limiting the County to Atienza’s testimony. The court found that the plaintiffs did not identify specific transcript testimony showing that Atienza could not answer questions about the noticed policies and procedures. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ lack of diligence had caused the late depositions and did not establish good cause for additional discovery about matters learned during those depositions.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions concerning Atienza’s deposition.

Substitute for Commander Schellenberg

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to depose Sheriff Sanchez as a substitute for Commander Schellenberg, who was on medical leave. The parties’ stipulation allowed the plaintiffs to select an alternate from among certain Alameda County Sheriff’s Office employees originally designated. The court found that the plaintiffs had agreed to that limitation and had not shown justification for selecting a different witness after learning information during delayed depositions.

The court ordered the parties to file, by January 18, 2024, a stipulation setting the deposition date for one of the previously agreed-to individuals as Schellenberg’s substitute.

Other Orders and Disposition

The court stated that the parties had filed 33 discovery-dispute letters and that the court had held more than 15 status conferences, most concerning discovery. It ruled that the deadline for raising further fact-discovery disputes had passed and that it would not consider additional fact-discovery disputes, except a dispute arising from the substitute deposition if presented within seven days after that deposition.

The court vacated the further case-management conference scheduled for January 17, 2023, stated that the schedule was governed by Pretrial Order No. 3, and ordered that the January 16 order disposed of Docket Nos. 386, 387, 388, and 389.