Paula Gordon v. Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc., et al.
Filing
97
ORDER REGARDING 95 Witness Alyssa Duran, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/9/2019. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PAULA GORDON, an individual,
12
13
Case No. 1:18-cv-00007 (DAD) (JLT)
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
WITNESS ALYSSA DURAN
Plaintiff,
v.
(Doc. 95)
14
15
16
17
18
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.
a business entity, form unknown; KGET-TV
17, a business entity, form unknown; The CW
NETWORK, LLC, a business entity, form
unknown; TELEMUNDO 17.3, a business
entity, form unknown; ERIK MENDOZA, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive
Defendants.
19
20
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
21
WHEREAS third party witness, Alyssa Duran, evaded Defendants Nexstar Broadcasting,
22
Inc. and Erik Mendoza’s (“Defendants”) attempts to serve her with a deposition subpoena prior to
23
the February 15, 2019 discovery completion deadline.
24
25
WHEREAS on February 20, 2019, the Court extended the fact discovery deadline to April
30, 2019, solely to allow Defendants the opportunity to take Duran’s deposition. (ECF #80).
26
WHEREAS after the Court extended the fact discovery deadline to allow Defendants
27
additional time to depose Duran, Defendants continued to make exhaustive and diligent attempts
28
to serve Duran with a deposition subpoena in order to take her deposition.
1
WHEREAS Duran continued to evade Defendants’ attempts to personally serve her with a
1
2
deposition subpoena.
WHEREAS the Court subsequently granted the Parties’ stipulation to serve Duran a
3
4
deposition subpoena by mail (ECF #83).
5
6
WHEREAS Duran was served by mail for a deposition appearance to take place on April
26, 2019.
7
8
WHEREAS Duran failed to appear at her deposition on the date set forth in the subpoena
on April 26, 2019.
9
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by Plaintiff Paula Gordon, and Defendants,
10
through their respective counsel, as follows:
11
(1)
12
13
The fact discovery deadline will remain open indefinitely solely for the parties to take the
deposition of Duran before trial.
(2)
Should Plaintiff’s counsel serve Duran with a trial subpoena before the trial date of January
14
7, 2020, in the event the Court finds Duran’s testimony to be admissible at trial, such trial
15
subpoena must be accompanied by a deposition subpoena for Defendants to take Duran’s
16
deposition no later than nine (9) days before the date set forth in the trial subpoena.
17
(3)
Should Plaintiff’s counsel serve Duran with a trial subpoena during trial, in the event the
18
Court finds Duran’s testimony to be admissible at trial, such trial subpoena must be
19
accompanied by a deposition subpoena for Defendants to take Duran’s deposition at least
20
two (2) days before Duran testifies at trial.
21
(4)
Duran shall not testify at trial until Defendants have had the opportunity to depose Duran.
22
(5)
Should Ms. Duran fail to comply with said subpoenas, any party shall have an opportunity
23
to file the appropriate pre-trial motions to seek the appropriate remedies available to the
24
Parties.
25
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
26
27
28
2
1
Dated: May 8, 2019
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
2
3
By:
Dylan B. Carp
Angel R. Sevilla
Stephanie T. Yang
Attorneys for Defendant
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, IN
4
5
6
7
8
Dated: May 8, 2019
LAW OFFICES OF VICTOR L. GEORGE
9
By:
10
/sWayne C. Smith
Victor L. George
Wayne C. Smith
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PAULA GORDON
11
12
13
Counsel for Plaintiff, Wayne C. Smith, authorized
submission of his e-signature on this document in
writing, by e-mail dated May 8, 2019, 4:43 p.m.
14
15
16
Dated: May 8, 2019
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
17
By:
18
/s/ Cheryl Schreck
Cheryl Schreck
Attorneys for Defendant
ERIK MENDOZA
19
20
Counsel for Defendant, Cheryl Schreck, authorized
submission of his e-signature on this document in
writing, by e-mail dated May 8, 2019, 11:45 a.m.
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated:
25
May 9, 2019
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?