Cazet et al v. Epps et al

Filing 90

ORDER on 89 Joint Letter Regarding Discovery Dispute filed by Robert L. Cazet, Alumni Athletics USA, Inc., Alumni Athletics USA, LLC. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 4/19/2011. (hlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ROBERT L CAZET, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiffs,

No. C 10-02460 JSW

v.
TOPPA EPPS, et al.,

13

ORDER ON JOINT LETTER
REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

Defendants.

14

/

15
16

The parties have filed a joint letter summarizing a discovery dispute over the location of

17

the deposition of Plaintiff Robert L. Cazet and the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel

18

represents that Plaintiff Cazet is scheduled to be out of town on the dates noticed for deposition

19

and requests that the Court order the Cazet and 30(b)(6) depositions to be held in Des Moines,

20

Iowa on April 26 and 27, 2011. As the party seeking a protective order, Plaintiff bears the

21

burden of demonstrating good cause. Fausto v. Credigy Services Corp., 251 F.R.D. 427, 430

22

n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Dolman, 333 F.2d 257, 269 (9th

23

Cir.1964)).

24

“A party may unilaterally choose the place for deposing an opposing party, subject to

25

the granting of a protective order by the Court pursuant to Rule 26(c)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P.,

26

designating a different place.” Cadent Ltd. v. 3M Unitek Corp., 232 F.R.D. 625, 628 (C.D.Cal.

27

2005) (citations and quotation marks omitted). As a general rule, the location of the corporate

28

party’s deposition is the principal place of business. Id. Plaintiff Cazet is a California resident

1

and Plaintiff Alumni Athletics USA is a California entity. Defense counsel represent that they

2

noticed the Cazet and 30(b)(6) depositions to be held in Santa Rosa, California in the district

3

where Plaintiffs reside. Plaintiff Cazet contends that it would be an extreme hardship for him to

4

return to California on the dates noticed for deposition because he is scheduled to be in Iowa

5

and New Mexico on business. The change in location will require additional travel expenses to

6

be incurred by Defendants. Although the Court finds that the parties may reasonably

7

accommodate Plaintiff Cazet’s travel schedule by conducting the depositions in Des Moines,

8

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause to shift the burden of the added travel expense to

9

Defendants.
The Court hereby orders that the depositions will be held in Des Moines, Iowa on April

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

26 and 27, 2011. Plaintiffs are ordered to pay the cost of roundtrip airfare from San Francisco

12

to Des Moines and one night of modest hotel accommodations in Des Moines for one defense

13

attorney.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: April 19, 2011
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2