Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Company
Filing
87
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/23/13 ORDERING that the following depositions have been mutually agreed upon by the parties. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LENNAR MARE ISLAND, LLC,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:12-cv-02182-KJM-KJN
v.
ORDER
STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
On September 11, 2013, defendant and counter-claimant Steadfast Insurance Company
18
19
(“Steadfast”) filed its Notice of Motion For Relief From Presumptive Discovery Limits For
20
Depositions, and the parties filed their related Joint Statement and supporting declarations on
21
November 14, 2013.1 (ECF Nos. 43-45, 66.) The undersigned partially granted and partially
22
denied the motion, and ordered the parties to submit a further Joint Statement regarding the
23
proposed additional deponents. (Order, ECF No. 77 at 2-3.) The undersigned also ordered the
24
parties to appear telephonically at a hearing regarding the proposed additional depositions, and set
25
the hearing to occur on December 20, 2013.2 (Id.)
26
1
27
28
This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local
Rule 302(c)(1).
2
On December 16, 2013, United States District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller denied LMI’s
1
1
The parties filed their Joint Statement on November 25, 2013. (Joint Statement, ECF No.
2
84.) The matter came on for hearing on December 20, 2013. Attorney David Campagne
3
appeared telephonically on behalf of Steadfast. Attorney Ryan Werner appeared telephonically
4
on behalf of plaintiff and counter-defendant Lennar Mare Island (“LMI”). Attorney Amanda
5
Hairston appeared on behalf of counter-defendant and counter-claimant CH2M Hill Constructors,
6
Inc. (“CCI”).
7
8
For all the reasons discussed on the record during the hearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED
THAT:
9
1.
The following depositions have been mutually agreed upon by the parties (see Joint
10
Statement, ECF No. 84 at 2), and Steadfast may proceed with deposing these
11
individuals in whatever chronological order it chooses (with the understanding that all
12
parties will cooperate in the scheduling of the depositions):
13
a. Jill Benson
14
b. Carla Duncan
15
c. Steve Farley
16
d. Sheila Roebuck3
17
e. Tom Sheaff4
18
f. Neal Siler5
19
g. Rick Teczon
20
2. Steadfast may also choose to depose the following individuals given that LMI has
21
agreed to the following deponents but with the caveat that LMI believes (Joint
22
23
Motion to Sever this case. (Order, ECF No. 81.)
3
24
Ms. Roebuck’s deposition length has been extended to 14 hours pursuant to the Order at ECF
No. 77 at 2.
25
4
26
27
Mr. Sheaff’s deposition length has been extended to 14 hours pursuant to the Order at ECF No.
77 at 2.
5
Mr. Siler’s deposition length has been extended to 14 hours pursuant to the Order at ECF No.
77 at 2.
28
2
Statement, ECF No. 84 at 1) these deponents are “irrelevant”6:
1
2
a. Kathy Gettys
3
b. Gordon Hart
4
c. Janet Naito
5
d. Steve Watson
3. Steadfast may depose LMI’s corporate designee(s) to be identified following
6
7
Steadfast’s circulation of draft deposition notices delineating topics to be addressed by
8
LMI’s person(s) most knowledgeable (“PMKs”). Steadfast may also depose CCI’s
9
corporate designee(s) to be identified following Steadfast’s circulation of draft
10
deposition notices delineating topics to be addressed by CCI’s PMKs. These draft
11
notices will be circulated among counsel prior to January 30, 2014, and LMI’s counsel
12
and CCI’s counsel shall each identify their clients’ PMKs on the listed topics
13
reasonably promptly thereafter.
14
a. As discussed during the hearing, the court is not inclined to allow “two-step”
15
depositions of individuals who can testify as to percipient knowledge and
16
testify in a PMK capacity. In other words, the court is not inclined to allow an
17
individual to first be deposed as a percipient witness, and thereafter, to be re-
18
deposed as a PMK in a separate second deposition. Because the court
19
envisions a single deposition for such individual(s), the court will entertain
20
requests to extend the time allowed for such deposition(s).
b. The court permits Steadfast to depose LMI’s and CCI’s percipient
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
witnesses/PMKs in whatever chronological order Steadfast chooses.
6
Given LMI’s position that these individual deponents are “irrelevant,” Steadfast may wish to
reconsider some or all of these depositions. This order does not require Steadfast to depose these
individuals; it permits Steadfast to do so. By permitting Steadfast to proceed with these
depositions, the court in no way determines that these witnesses are more or less relevant than
other potential deponents. As the court emphasized during the hearing, however, if Steadfast
chooses to proceed with these depositions despite LMI’s “irrelevance” argument, Steadfast is
strongly cautioned that the court will take into consideration the total amount of “extra”
depositions Steadfast has taken (i.e., the number beyond the 10-deposition limit) when deciding
any future requests from Steadfast seeking additional depositions.
3
1
4. Steadfast may depose a “corporate designee” from the Navy. However, this order
2
does not require that the Navy actually produce any such witness. This order is
3
limited solely to permitting Steadfast to use one of its allotted depositions on a Navy
4
designee/PMK. The court makes no determination as to whether the Navy is or should
5
be a party to this case, whether the Navy is obligated to produce a PMK witness in this
6
case, or any other determination binding upon the Navy.
5. Steadfast may also depose the following individuals notwithstanding LMI’s
7
8
disagreement regarding such depositions; however, Steadfast’s decision to proceed
9
with such depositions may negatively impact Steadfast’s ability to conduct additional
“extra” depositions in the future:
10
11
a. Starr Dehn7
12
b. Tim Graves8
13
c. Jeff Morris9
14
d. Paul Scherbak10
6. Steadfast’s requests to depose the following individuals are denied without prejudice
15
16
at this time, but Steadfast may request these depositions in the future if it believes it
17
can make the requisite particularized showing of need, and the parties remain free to
18
19
20
21
7
As discussed during the hearing, should Steadfast choose to proceed with deposing Starr Dehn
despite LMI’s arguments that witnesses Jennifer Lindquist or Daisy Wei are more appropriate
deponents, the court may not look favorably upon a potential future request from Steadfast to
depose Ms. Lindquist and/or Ms. Wei.
8
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
As discussed during the hearing, should Steadfast choose to proceed with deposing Tim Graves
despite LMI’s arguments that witness Jennifer Lindquist is a more appropriate deponent, the court
may not look favorably upon a potential future request from Steadfast to depose Ms. Lindquist.
9
As discussed during the hearing, should Steadfast choose to proceed with deposing Jeff Morris
despite LMI’s arguments that witness Daisy Wei is a more appropriate deponent, the court may
not look favorably upon a potential future request from Steadfast to depose Ms. Wei.
10
As discussed during the hearing, should Steadfast choose to proceed with deposing Paul
Scherbak despite LMI’s arguments that witnesses Jennifer Lindquist or Daisy Wei are more
appropriate deponents, the court may not look favorably upon a potential future request from
Steadfast to depose Ms. Lindquist and/or Ms. Wei.
4
1
stipulate to such depositions:
2
a. Jim Kovalcik11
3
b. Beth Pennington12
4
c. Michael Walker13
5
7. The parties are welcome to stipulate to additional depositions or to stipulate to
6
eliminate any deposition permitted in this order. However, the court clarifies that a
7
stipulation to eliminate any particular deposition permitted in this order shall not result
8
in the deposing party’s having the ability to fill the “spot” of the vacated deposition
9
with some other witness. For example, if Steadfast ultimately decides not to depose
10
Gordon Hart, Steadfast may not unilaterally switch some other potential deponent into
11
Hart’s “spot” without an agreement of all other parties. All depositions in excess of
12
the 10-deposition limit must be approved by the court or by way of an agreement by
13
all parties.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 23, 2013
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
11
24
As discussed during the hearing, the agreed-upon deposition of Jill Benson may render Mr.
Walker’s deposition unnecessary.
25
12
26
27
28
The court is inclined to assess the propriety of Ms. Pennington’s deposition at a later date in
this case, following the completion of other depositions that may narrow the topics upon which
Ms. Pennington might testify.
13
As discussed during the hearing, the agreed-upon deposition of Tom Sheaff may render Mr.
Walker’s deposition unnecessary.
5
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?