Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al
Filing
484
ORDER RE DEPOSITIONS by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 482 Discovery Letter Brief.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
RAHINAH IBRAHIM,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
No. C 06-00545 WHA
v.
ORDER RE DEPOSITIONS
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants.
/
17
18
19
The parties dispute the interpretation of an April 19 order regarding depositions (Dkt.
20
No. 461). To reiterate, the Court is of the view that depositions will be of extremely limited
21
value in this action. Nonetheless, the order granted plaintiff leave to take total of three
22
depositions between the date of the order and the July 31 discovery cutoff. For any
23
remaining depositions within this limit, plaintiff may notice either 30(b)(6) or fact witness
24
depositions as plaintiff sees fit. Any 30(b)(6) depositions must comply with ¶ 24 of the
25
supplemental order (Dkt. No. 3). Regardless of the type, counsel are admonished to avoid
26
privileged and classified material. No additional 30(b)(6) or fact witness depositions will be
27
allowed absent prior Court approval.
28
1
2
For the avoidance of doubt, plaintiff’s own deposition and depositions of experts do
not count toward this three-deposition limit.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: June 4, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
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?