Davis v. Prison Health Services, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO ENLARGE THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2010)

Davis v. Prison Health Services, Inc. et al

Doc. 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendants. / FREDDIE M. DAVIS, Plaintiff, No. C 09-2629 SI ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO ENLARGE THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants seek to enlarge plaintiff's deposition by an additional three and a half hours. In 2008, plaintiff was deposed for a total of approximately sixteen hours, on October 27, 2010, plaintiff was deposed for an additional three and a half hours, and on November 4, 2010, plaintiff was deposed for approximately two hours. The November 4, 2010 deposition was cut short (the parties disagree why), and a further one and a half hour deposition of plaintiff will be scheduled in January 2011. Defendants seek to enlarge that further deposition by an additional three hours on the ground that during the November 4, 2010 deposition, plaintiff's attorney used up a considerable amount of time with baseless objections. Defendants state that the additional time is needed because not all counsel for the seven defendants have been able to question plaintiff about new allegations and claims raised in the second amended complaint. Plaintiff asserts that any further deposition is unnecessary, burdensome and harassing. Plaintiff argues that counsel's objections were well-founded, and asserts that defense counsel have engaged in "long ranting speeches" that have needlessly consumed deposition time. The Court has reviewed the submitted deposition excerpts, and finds that while some objections by plaintiff's counsel may have merit, others do not. For example, when defense counsel asked plaintiff

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

whether anything would refresh her memory (after plaintiff answered that she did not remember), plaintiff's counsel objected "lacks foundation, calls for speculation." Depo. at 1039:6-7. This objection is without merit, and these and similar objections wasted time. Accordingly, the Court finds it reasonable to grant defendants' request for additional time. However, in light of the significant amount of time already spent deposing plaintiff, the Court will only grant an additional two hours of deposition time. The Court strongly advises all counsel to conduct the remaining deposition time efficiently, without unnecessary colloquy between counsel, and without any counsel interposing baseless objections.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2010

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2