Kanawi et al v. Bechtel Corporation et al

Filing 329

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 LETTER re #314 Letter filed by Fremont Investment Advisors, #298 Letter filed by Salvador Aquino, Beverly Kanawi, #321 Letter Brief, filed by Bechtel Corporation, Bechtel Trust and Thrift Plan Committee, The, Peggi Knox. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on September 10, 2008. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BEVERLY KANAWI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. C 06-05566 CRB (EDL) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 LETTER

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

BECHTEL CORP., et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ On September 4, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a letter brief raising three discovery disputes. The next day, Plaintiffs filed another letter brief raising three additional discovery disputes in a cursory fashion. On September 8, 2008, Defendants Fremont and Bechtel filed letter briefs in response, including assertions that Plaintiffs did not comply with the meet and confer requirement before filing their September 5, 2008 letter. The Court has carefully reviewed the letters and has concluded that they do not provide sufficient information for the Court to rule on the disputes. Accordingly, lead counsel are ordered to meet and confer immediately in person or by telephone regarding these issues, which the Court expects them to resolve without further court intervention. To the extent that any disputes remain after that meet and confer process, those disputes shall proceed by noticed motion, which the Court will hear on shortened time. The Court offers the following guidance on the issues raised by Plaintiffs. With respect to instructions not to answer, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c)(2) provides that: "A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3)." Relevance is not a proper basis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

for an instruction not to answer. Further, the protective order in this case would address any privacy or confidentiality issues relating to deposition testimony. With respect to Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) notices, Plaintiffs fail to state which objections lack merit. As part of the meet and confer process, Defendants should identify the objections on which they continue to rely. Finally, the Court is disappointed that the parties think they require the Court's assistance regarding the question of the location of expert witness depositions. The parties are encouraged to compromise. The general rule would favor most depositions taking place in San Francisco, but some exceptions may be appropriate. In particular, it appears reasonable for Plaintiffs' expert in New York to be deposed in the Northeast. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 10, 2008 _______________________________ ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28