Munoz v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 25

ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELECONFERENCE re: Discovery Dispute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/31/2018. The emergency motion 23 is denied without prejudice. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICK MUNOZ,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01103-LJO-JLT (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER AFTER INFORMAL
TELECONFERENCE RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,
Defendants.

Due to a dispute over setting the depositions of the defendants, the Court held an informal,

18

teleconference to attempt to resolve the matter on May 30, 2018. Before this occurred, the

19

defendants filed an emergency motion related to the depositions and sought a stay to prevent the

20

depositions from going forward until the Court could rule on the motion. (Doc. 23)

21

As it turns out, the deposition of the individual defendant, Dr. Meissner-Frisk cannot go

22

forward because she is on medical leave and is not expected to return to work until mid-July.

23

Thus, counsel agreed that this deposition will be postponed until her return to work.

24

As to the entity, the deposition notice failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) which

25

requires the areas for examination to be described with “reasonable particularity.” Thus, the

26

Court was unable to assist in scheduling the deposition of the entity until the attorney for the

27

CDCR could investigate whom the entity would designate to testify. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed he

28
1

1

would email a list of topics to opposing counsel by the end of the day. Thus, the Court

2

ORDERS:

3

1.

The depositions of Dr. Meissner-Frisk SHALL be completed by August 17, 2018.

4

Counsel for Dr. Meissner-Frisk SHALL notify Dr. Meissner-Frisk of the deposition and

5

coordinate with her and counsel for the plaintiff to select a mutually convenient date;

6

2.

No later than June 6, 2018, Counsel SHALL make best efforts to select a

7

convenient date for the deposition of the CDCR. The Court anticipates the deposition will occur

8

no later than June 15, 2018. Within four business hours after the date is selected by counsel

9

jointly, counsel for the plaintiff SHALL serve a notice of the deposition via email to counsel for

10

the CDCR. The CDCR may serve objections to the notice via email at least 24 hours before the

11

deposition begins.1

12

3.

The Court finds the emergency motion (Doc. 23) to be moot/unripe and, on that

13

basis, it is DENIED without prejudice. Other than its comments that the deposition notice

14

failed to provide proper notice of the categories for testimony, the Court makes no other findings

15

as to the other objections set forth in the emergency motion. However, the Court encourages the

16

plaintiff’s attorney to review the motion and the applicable legal authorities and to make whatever

17

corrections to the deposition notice he feels are necessary to make it comply with the Federal

18

Rules of Civil Procedure.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 31, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Based upon the agreement of counsel as to how they would proceed as to setting the deposition of the
CDCR, the Court will find that objections to timeliness of the deposition notice may not be raised.

2