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)

Download PDF
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?