Cano

Cano v. Davis

Good Law
193 F. Supp. 2d 1177·2002 WL 432057·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9832
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMarch 18, 200201-08477 MMM(RCX)California2,347 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ASSEMBLY SPEAKER WESSON’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE DEPOSITION OF ASSEMBLY-MEMBER JUAN VARGAS AND DENYING SENATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE DEPOSITION OF ANTONIO GONZALEZ

On March 5, 2002, the court held argument on Assembly Speaker Wesson’s motion for a protective order regarding the deposition of Assemblymember Juan Vargas and the Senate Defendants’ motion for a protective order regarding the deposition of Antonio Gonzalez. Having considered the briefs and the arguments of counsel, the court denies the Senate Defendants’ motion, and grants in part and denies in part Speaker Wesson’s motion as follows:

1. The legislative privilege does not bar Antonio Gonzalez, a third party non-legislator, from testifying to conversations with legislators and their staffs. See Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 629, n. 18 , 92 S.Ct. 2614 , 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972). As Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of settlement discussions, not whether they are discoverable (see, e.g., White v. Kenneth Warren & Son, Ltd., 203 F.R.D. 364, 368 (N.D.Ill.2001); Folb v. Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.