*1 On May 8, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation regarding Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order Quashing Plaintiff's Subpoena for the Deposition of Sheriff Alexander Villanueva (“Villanueva Motion”). (Dkt. No. 51). The parties also filed a Joint Stipulation for a Protective Order Precluding the Deposition of Sgt. Jeremy Carr (“Carr Motion”). (Dkt. No. 52). A telephonic hearing was held on June 4, 2020. For the reasons discussed below, the Villanueva Motion is GRANTED and the Carr Motion is DENIED.

A. Villanueva Motion

Plaintiff has not established that the “apex” deposition of Sheriff Villanueva is warranted at this time. Because “the deposition of high-level executives (so-called ‘apex’ depositions) creates a tremendous potential for abuse or harassment[,] ... [h]eads of government agencies in particular are not normally subject to deposition absent extraordinary circumstances.” K.C.R. v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. CV 13-3806, 2014 WL 3434257, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2014) (citations omitted). “In determining whether to allow an apex deposition, courts consider (1) whether the deponent has unique first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in the case and (2) whether the party seeking the deposition has exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods.” Id. (citation omitted). Plaintiff contends that “Sheriff Villanueva's knowledge regarding the deputy gang/clique existence in the [East LA] precinct is within his unique possession and only Villanueva knows the full extent and control these gangs have over the department.” (Villanueva Motion at 4) (emphasis added). But anything Villanueva knows he likely would have learned from someone else or from documents he reviewed.

While the Court is prohibiting the deposition of Sheriff Villanueva at this time, the Court will revisit the issue if it becomes apparent that Villanueva has “unique first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in the case.” K.C.R., 2014 WL 3434257, at *3. In the meantime, Plaintiff should serve Defendants with a Rule 30(b)(6) notice requesting that Defendants produce the person(s) most knowledgeable of the deputy gangs and the Banditos gang operating out of the East Los Angeles station (see Villanueva Motion at 23) as well as other issues relevant to Plaintiff's Monell claim. The Court expects the parties to work in good faith to find the appropriate deponents and to schedule them as soon as practicable.

B. Carr Motion

Defendants have informed Plaintiff that Internal Affairs Sgt. Carr is the person most knowledgeable of the internal affairs investigation into the shooting of Anthony Vargas. (Carr Motion at 6). Plaintiff seeks to depose Sgt. Carr, along with the production of documents related to the investigation of Vargas's death as well as documents related to any investigation of the East LA deputy gang. (Id. at 2).

Defendants' objections to this deposition are largely overruled. Defendants vaguely contend that the Carr deposition is improper because Plaintiff should first depose the Defendant deputies, investigators, and the persons listed in Defendants' initial and supplemental Rule 26 disclosures. (Carr Motion at 4). But other than perhaps an “apex” deposition, as discussed above, a party can sequence depositions anyway it wants to. See, e.g. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(3). The documents sought in the Carr deposition were addressed in the Court's Orders of May 11 and 14, 2020, and Defendants are expected to promptly produce the responsive information. (Compare Carr Motion at 2, with Dkt. No. 53 at 7, 10– 13). Nevertheless, while the internal affairs investigation is pending, Defendants can withhold production of responsive documents pursuant to the official information privilege. (Dkt. No. 54). The privilege equally applies to any questions to Sgt. Carr that specifically implicate the pending internal affairs investigation.

D. Conclusion

*2 Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order Against the Deposition of Sheriff Alexander Villanueva [51] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's subpoena for the deposition of Sheriff Villanueva (Dkt. No. 51, Ex. A) is QUASHED. Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order Against the Deposition of Sgt. Jeremy Carr [52] is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for sanctions (Carr Motion at 35–37) is DENIED.

The parties are encouraged to avail themselves of the Court's informal discovery dispute resolution process to resolve any remaining discovery issues. (See Judge Sagar's Procedures).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

cc: Philip S. Gutierrez

United States District Judge