Dayton v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et. al.

Filing 24

ORDER denying 21 Motion to Compel signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/29/13: The court finds an award of expenses is not warranted considering all of the circumstances reflected in the record before it on this motion. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUDY DAYTON, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:12-cv-1945 TLN CKD Plaintiff, v. ORDER SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., et al., Defendants. 16 17 Defendants’ motion to compel deposition testimony and production of documents came 18 on regularly for hearing on August 28, 2013. Jennet Zapata appeared for plaintiff. Gary Basham 19 appeared for defendants. Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing 20 the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND 21 ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 22 1. Objections to the deposition of plaintiff’s attorney Galen Shimoda have not been 23 waived. Defendants have failed to show that no other means exist to obtain the information, the 24 information sought is relevant and unprivileged, and the information is crucial to the preparation 25 of the case. See Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Teledyne, Inc.), 198 Cal. App. 3d 1487 26 (1988); see also Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986) 27 (information sought via deposition of opposing counsel would reveal mental impressions and thus 28 protected by work product doctrine). Depositions of plaintiff’s law firm and counselor will 1 1 therefore not be allowed. Plaintiff’s counsel has provided an affidavit that all documents 2 responsive to the deposition subpoenas have been produced. The motion to compel (ECF No. 21) 3 is accordingly denied. In light of plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the requests for admission 4 which have previously been propounded by defendants, expanding the presumptive limit on the 5 number of interrogatories under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 is not merited. 6 2. The court finds an award of expenses is not warranted considering all of the 7 circumstances reflected in the record before it on this motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(5). 8 Dated: August 29, 2013 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 4 dayton-sears3.oah 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?