Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shirley A. Newman and Anthony C. Butler v. San Joaquin Delta Community College District

May 5, 2011

SHIRLEY A. NEWMAN AND ANTHONY C. BUTLER, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SAN JOAQUIN DELTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, A PUBLIC ENTITY; DANIELE RULEY, JAMES WOOD, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Presently before the court is defendant San Joaquin Delta Community College District's ("District") motion for a protective order brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1).*fn1 (Mot. for Prot. Order, Dkt. No. 95.) The District seeks an order barring plaintiffs from inspecting and copying defendant Daniele Ruley's employment records that relate to her employment with her current employer, Gallo Winery, which the parties also refer interchangeably as the "Gallo family." The parties filed a timely Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 251 ("Joint Statement"). (Joint Statement, Dkt. No. 96.)

The court heard this matter on its law and motion calendar on May 5, 2011. Attorney Kenneth N. Meleyco appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Attorney Johanne C. Medina appeared on behalf of the District. The undersigned has fully considered the parties' submissions, oral arguments, and appropriate portions of the record in this case and, for the reasons that follow, grants the District's motion and enters a protective order precluding plaintiffs from inspecting and copying Ruley's employment records from Gallo Winery or the Gallo family. Plaintiffs have simply articulated no basis for this court to find that the records sought are relevant to the parties' claims or defenses in this action or that the discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.*fn2

I. BACKGROUND

A. General Background*fn3

The operative Third Amended Complaint alleges that plaintiffs are husband and wife and were students enrolled in and attending classes at San Joaquin Delta Community College ("Delta College") in March 2008. (Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 10-11, 13, Dkt. No. 40.) Newman allegedly "suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and spinal damage and disease" and, as a result, always wears on her wrist a "medic-alert bracelet," which states, in part: "Diabetic, epileptic, Gabapentin, high blood pressure, psychotic disorder . . . ." (Id. ¶ 10.) The medic-alert bracelet also allegedly lists Anthony Butler, a plaintiff in this action and Newman's husband during the events in question, as an emergency contact and contains contact information for Butler. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that as a result Newman's disabilities, Newman suffers from "severe and extreme anxiety" from time to time. (Id. ¶ 13.) They also allege that Delta College was aware of Newman's disabilities. (Id.)

On March 13, 2008, plaintiffs were allegedly attending classes in separate classrooms at Delta College. (Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11-12.) Plaintiffs allege that at approximately 11:30 a.m., Newman began suffering from "severe and extreme anxiety" and exited her classroom and went to the classroom where Butler, her husband, was attending class. (Id. ¶ 13.) This was allegedly Newman's "usual course of conduct when struck by anxiety" and, when Newman reached her husband's classroom, the instructor allegedly escorted Newman and Butler to a private room. (Id.) Once in the private room, Newman allegedly "knocked some items off a desk and said she was looking for something to hurt somebody." (Id.) A woman who was in the room at the time allegedly called the police and reported that Newman was ill. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that two officers, Delta College Police Officers Ruley and Wood, were dispatched to the scene. (Id. ¶ 14.)

Plaintiffs allege that although they were "peacefully leaving" the classroom when Officers Ruley and Wood arrived, the officers attacked plaintiffs. (See Third Am. Compl. ¶ 15.) Briefly stated, plaintiffs allege that Officers Ruley and Wood attacked Butler without provocation and used unnecessary and unreasonable force in detaining and restraining Butler. (See id.) They also allege that Officer Ruley threw Newman "against a stout wall with great and unreasonable force." (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that they were then "falsely imprisoned and detained." (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that they were temporarily suspended from Delta College for an alleged assault on a Delta College police officer. (See id. ¶ 21(i).)

B. The Pending Discovery Dispute

The present discovery dispute relates to Ruley's employment after leaving her position as a Delta College police officer. Ruley testified at deposition that she left her employment with Delta College in or around May 2008, after one year of employment. (Abbott Decl., Ex. 4 at 3, Dkt. No. 95, Doc. No. 95-2; see also Meleyco Decl., Ex. A at 2, Dkt. No. 96, Doc. No. 96-1.) She further testified that she currently works full-time for "the Gallo family," performing "executive protection and corporate security" services.*fn4 (Abbott Decl., Ex. 4 at 3; see also Meleyco Decl., Ex. A at 2.) Ruley testified that she began working for the Gallo family in or around January 2009. (Abbott Decl., Ex. 4 at 3; see also Meleyco Decl., Ex. A at 2.)

On April 6, 2011, plaintiffs served a document subpoena on "Gallo Winery," a non-party, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. (Abbott Decl. ¶ 2 & Ex. 1.) The subpoena commands Gallo Winery to produce and permit the inspection and copying of the following:

Any and all employment records, applications, performance reviews, resumes, training documents, permits of any kind, time sheets, payroll information, any type of written or electronic correspondence between Ruley and Gallo, and any other type of information created or maintained during the employment of Ruley by Gallo. (Abbot Decl., Ex. 1 at 1.) The subpoena commanded production on April 20, 2011. (Id.)

On April 7, 2011, the District's counsel contacted plaintiffs' counsel by letter in an effort to meet and confer regarding the subpoena. (Abbott Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. 2.) In short, the District objected to the subpoena on the grounds that the information sought-Ruley's employment records that post-date the incident in question and Ruley's employment with the District-falls outside of the scope of permissible discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). (Abbott Decl., Ex. 2 at 1.)

In a letter dated April 13, 2011, plaintiffs' counsel responded to the District's counsel's letter. (Abbott Decl. ΒΆ 4 & Ex. 3.) The substance of plaintiffs' ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.