Longoria v. County of Dallas, TX
3:14-cv-03111
N.D. Tex.Feb 24, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Paula Longoria, a pretrial detainee, alleges she was sexually assaulted in Dallas County Jail by guard Richie Ladone Wimbish. She sued Dallas County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sued Wimbish for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The discovery dispute concerns whether Dr. Catherin Roberts—Longoria’s treating psychiatrist and a retained/testifying expert—may attend Longoria’s deposition.
- Longoria seeks to have Dr. Roberts present to calm and support her during the deposition; defendants seek a protective order excluding Dr. Roberts from the deposition.
- Defendants argue Dr. Roberts’s presence would improperly influence or intimidate Longoria and interfere with Defendants’ ability to test Longoria’s mental state and credibility.
- The magistrate judge treated the motions as Rule 26(c) protective-order requests and held a hearing; parties agreed the amended Rule 26 standards apply.
- The court found Defendants failed to show particularized facts demonstrating that Dr. Roberts’s presence would disrupt the deposition or justify exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Roberts may attend Longoria’s deposition | Dr. Roberts is Longoria’s treating psychiatrist and designated testifying expert; her presence calms Longoria and aids truthful testimony | Dr. Roberts will improperly influence or intimidate Longoria, impairing Defendants’ ability to obtain truthful, uncoached testimony | Dr. Roberts may attend; she must remain in the room, not speak or communicate with Longoria during examination (except breaks) |
| Whether defendants met burden for protective order under Rule 26(c) | Longoria: Default Rule 30(c)(1) allows witnesses to attend; exclusion requires particularized showing of harm | Defendants: Allegations and affidavit evidence show influence/competency concerns warrant exclusion | Defendants did not make the required particularized, factual showing of good cause; protective order denied |
| Whether Dr. Roberts is treated differently because she’s an expert and not yet designated | Longoria: Dr. Roberts is retained and will be designated as a testifying expert under the scheduling order | Defendants: Dr. Roberts is not yet designated and therefore should not attend; attendance unnecessary because Longoria is competent | Court: Status as treating physician and designated testifying expert supports attendance; designation timing does not justify exclusion |
| Allocation of fees/costs for these motions | Longoria: No special fee award requested | Defendants: Sought protective relief; no distinct fee request substantiated | Each party will bear its own costs under Rules 26(c)(3) and 37(a)(5) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Terra Int’l, 134 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 1998) (party seeking sequestration must show particularized facts to justify protective order)
- Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 901 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1990) (protective order requires showing of good cause and specific need)
- Harris v. Amoco Prod. Co., 768 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1985) (trial court has broad discretion in discovery protective orders)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (trial court best positioned to weigh competing discovery interests)