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)

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