From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hennefer v. Yuba Cnty.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 10, 2023
2:22-cv-00389-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2023)

Opinion

2:22-cv-00389-TLN-KJN

09-10-2023

ESTATE OF WILLIAM HENNEFER et al., Plaintiffs, v. YUBA COUNTY et al., Defendants.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The parties appeared, through counsel, for an informal telephonic conference regarding discovery on September 8, 2023, before the undersigned. Attorney Patrick H. Dwyer appeared for plaintiffs, attorney Matthew W. Gross appeared for defendants.

This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1).

According to the joint statement filed by the parties prior to the conference, plaintiffs seek a court order that: 1) plaintiffs be permitted to re-notice the depositions of Deputees Eck, Saecheo, Aguirre, Mullins, and Mallory, 2) defendants pay for costs and fees of the re-noticed depositions, and reimburse plaintiffs for the prior depositions, 3) a forensic audit of the computer defendant used to download the video be conducted, and 4) defendants produce names and a detailed description regarding the handling of the video. (ECF No. 28.)

During the informal conference, however, it became apparent that the parties disagree about what drone footage videos were actually produced. According to plaintiffs, there are three videos that were never previously produced by defendants. According to defendants, all videos were produced to plaintiffs during the initial discovery, albeit in a low-quality format.

Because this disagreement is central to the instant discovery dispute, the court hereby orders that the parties further meet and confer to identify exactly what videos were produced and when. The court also orders that plaintiffs' attorney be permitted to re-notice the deposition of Deputy Mallory, for which defendants are required to pay the costs of a court reporter and transcripts. Plaintiffs' requests are otherwise denied without prejudice to renewal.

ORDER

It is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties shall further meet and confer in person within the next thirty days at a mutually agreed upon location for the purpose of determining precisely which videos were produced and when.

2. Plaintiffs' counsel may re-notice the deposition of Deputy Mallory. The costs of the court report and transcript for this re-deposition shall be shifted to defendants. The court declines to award attorneys' fees at this time.

3. Plaintiffs' remaining requests are denied without prejudice to renewal.


Summaries of

Hennefer v. Yuba Cnty.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 10, 2023
2:22-cv-00389-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2023)
Case details for

Hennefer v. Yuba Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:ESTATE OF WILLIAM HENNEFER et al., Plaintiffs, v. YUBA COUNTY et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 10, 2023

Citations

2:22-cv-00389-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2023)