United States District Court, N.D. California
MARCO B. HEYWARD, Plaintiff,
HAYWARD POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER, GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
DEADLINE, AND APPOINTING COUNSEL/GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR
DEPOSITION OF M.H. RE: DKT. NOS. 69, 72
C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge.
have twice noticed for deposition Plaintiff's wife,
Marina Gonzales, and his minor son, M.H. Neither appeared
at the depositions, and Plaintiff brings a motion seeking a
protective order prohibiting their depositions. See
Dkt. No. 69 (“Protective Order Motion”).
Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion and seek an order
compelling Ms. Gonzales and M.H. to appear for deposition.
They also ask the Court to extend the discovery cut-off to
allow them to depose these two witnesses. See Dkt.
No. 72 (“Discovery Deadline Motion”). The parties
have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the
reasons stated below, the Protective Order Motion is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part. The Discovery Deadline Motion is
GRANTED in part. The Court finds that the motions are
suitable for determination without oral argument and
therefore vacates the motion hearing set for May 5,
contends the Court should not permit Defendants to depose his
wife or minor son because such depositions are not reasonably
calculated to lead to discoverable information. Plaintiff
testified at his deposition, however, that he had discussed
this case with his wife, and that his son's description
of the underlying events (to which he was a witness) is
“very crucial” to the case. See Dkt. No.
71-1 (Heyward Depo.) at 64, 246. Accordingly, the Court
rejects Plaintiff's request for a protective order.
because Plaintiff's son is a minor, it is the Court's
obligation under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to protect his interests. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
17(c)(“ The court must appoint a guardian ad litem--or
issue another appropriate order--to protect a minor or
incompetent person who is unrepresented in an
action.”). The Court finds that the interests of M.H.
can be adequately protected by appointing counsel to prepare
for and defend his deposition. Because M.H. is in need of
counsel to assist him in this matter and volunteer counsel is
willing to be appointed to undertake this representation at
the request of the Federal Pro Bono Project, Ms. Ana Gardea
and Ms. Karen Silverman are hereby appointed as counsel for
M.H. in this matter. Appointed counsel will also serve as
guardian ad litem for M.H. in connection with the deposition.
Ms. Gardea and Ms. Silverman are appointed for the limited
purpose of preparing for deposition and representing M.H. at
the deposition. The deposition of M.H. shall not exceed two
hours in length and will be conducted outside of school hours
if possible. Subject to these conditions, the Court orders
Marina Gonzales and M.H. to appear for depositions, to occur
no later than May 12, 2017. Further, the Court GRANTS in part
Defendants' request that the discovery cut-off be
extended and therefore extends that deadline to May 12, 2017,
solely for the purposes of permitting Defendants to depose
Ms. Gonzales and M.H.
reasons stated above, the Motion for Protective Order is
DENIED except to the extent that M.H. will be represented at
his deposition by Court-appointed counsel, who will also
serve as guardian ad litem in connection with the deposition,
and his deposition will be limited to two (2) hours. The
Discovery Deadline Motion is GRANTED in part to the extent
that the Court extends the discovery cut-off to May 12, 2017
with respect to the completion of the depositions of M.H. and
Marina Gonzales only. The Court appoints Ms. Ana Gardea and
Ms. Karen Silverman to serve as counsel and guardian ad litem
to M.H. in connection with his deposition, as discussed
IS SO ORDERED.
 Pursuant to Rule 5.2(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, references to an individual who is
known to be a minor in an electronic or paper filing with the
Court may not use the minor's full name. Consistent with
that rule, the Court uses the initials M.H. The parties did
not adhere to Rule 5.2(a) in their motion papers. The Court
cautions the parties that it is improper to refer to
Plaintiff's son in their pleadings by his full
 The Court notes that although the face
page of Defendants' Discovery Deadline Motion purports to
notice that motion for hearing on May 5, 2017, the motion was
filed improperly through the Court's electronic filing
system and therefore, no motion was placed on the Court's
calendar. Nonetheless, the Court formally vacates the May 5
hearing out of an abundance of caution in order to avoid any
potential confusion on the part of the parties.
 The Court notes that Defendants state
in their Opposition to Plaintiff's Protective Order
Motion at page 3 that the deadline for filing dispositive
motions is May 11, 2017. Defendants are incorrect. Pursuant
to the Court's scheduling order, all briefing on
dispositive motions must be completed four weeks
before the June 16, 2017 hearing date, that is, by May 19,
2017. See Dkt. 29 at 2-3. The parties were
instructed to meet and confer and submit a stipulation with
briefing dates that would meet that deadline but have not
done so. The Court will address any scheduling issues that
may result from ...