Totah v. Lucasfilm Entertainment Company, Ltd

Filing 54

DISCOVERY ORDER re 50 Notice (Other) filed by Lucasfilm Entertainment Company, Ltd, 49 Notice (Other) filed by Lucasfilm Entertainment Company, Ltd. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/24/2010. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2010)

Download PDF
Totah v. Lucasfilm Entertainment Company, Ltd Doc. 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California TABITHA TOTAH, v. Plaintiff, No. C 09-4051 MMC (MEJ) ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTES (DKT. ##49, 50) LUCASFILM ENTERTAINMENT CO., Defendant. _____________________________________/ Before the Court are two joint discovery dispute letters, filed August 25, 2010. (Dkt. ##49, 50.) The first letter addresses a dispute regarding Plaintiff's Independent Medical Examination. ("Joint Letter 1," Dkt. #49.) The second letter addresses a dispute regarding the deposition of Howard Roffman. ("Joint Letter 2," Dkt. #50.). Upon careful review of the parties' positions, the Court ORDERS as follows. A. Length of Plaintiff's IME (Joint Letter 1) In Joint Letter 1, the parties dispute how long Defendant's forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Levy, should have to conduct Plaintiff's Independent Medical Examination ("IME"). Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's allegations of severe, continuing emotional distress, entitle it "comprehensive, psychiatric medical examination, including a complete battery of psychological tests." (Joint Letter 1 at 2.) Defendant maintains that Dr. Levy typically requires two days for such testing: 4 to 6 hours on the first day for psychological testing and another 4 to 6 hours on the second day for a psychiatric interview/assessment. Id. At a minimum, Defendant requests one day of 8 hours: 4 hours in the morning and another 4 hours in the afternoon. Id. In response, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's request is "both overly intrusive and unnecessary." Id. Plaintiff does not appear to object to an IME, just the amount of time. She requests that the Court permit either 4 hours on one day or one day with 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the afternoon. Upon review of the parties' arguments, the Court finds that the length of the proposed exam is reasonable and appropriate given Plaintiff's emotional distress claims. Accordingly, the Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 For the Northern District of California GRANTS Defendant's request. The IME shall be limited to 8 hours, and Plaintiff shall choose whether it is completed in one day or divided into two days of 4 hours. B. Deposition of Howard Roffman (Joint Letter 2) In Joint Letter 2, Plaintiff seeks to take a second day of deposition to complete her seven hours of deposition of Howard Roffman, President of Licensing at Lucasfilm. (Joint Letter 2 at 2.) Plaintiff has deposed Mr. Roffman for 2.5 hours already and requests an additional 4.5 hours. In response, Defendant requests that the additional deposition time be limited to questions regarding documents produced by Defendant subsequent to the day of Mr. Roffman's initial deposition. Id. Plaintiff initially deposed Mr. Roffman on February 26, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Id. According to Defendant, at 11:30 a.m. that day, Plaintiff completed her questions, even though Defendant advised her that Mr. Roffman was available until 12:30 p.m. Id. Plaintiff reserved her right to resume the deposition at a later date, but Defendant stated on the record that the witness would not be produced for a second day of deposition, except for questions about documents produced to Plaintiff after the deposition. Id. Plaintiff subsequently noticed the continued deposition in August for 4.5 hours. Id. at 3. Defendant replied that Mr. Roffman would be available, but only to answer questions related to documents produced after his initial deposition. Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1) limits the duration of a deposition to 1 day of 7 hours, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court. Here, it is unclear why Mr. Roffman's initial deposition was not scheduled for 7 hours. However, the Court finds it appropriate to permit Plaintiff to depose him for the remaining 4.5 hours on any subject. Defendant has not established why Plaintiff should not be permitted the full amount of time under Rule 30(d)(1). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to depose Mr. Roffman within the time limit of 3.5 hours on any subject. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 For the Northern District of California Dated: September 24 , 2010 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?