Akaosugi et al v. Benihana, Inc.
Filing
73
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY LETTERS re 70 Letter filed by Benihana National Corp., 69 Letter filed by Tetsuo Akaosugi, Hieu Nguyen. Signed by Judge Alsup on January10, 2012. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
TETSUO AKAOSUGI, HIEU NGUYEN,
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
12
13
14
No. C 11-01272 WHA
Plaintiffs,
ORDER REGARDING
DISCOVERY LETTERS
v.
15
BENIHANA NATIONAL
CORPORATION, INC.,
16
Defendant.
/
17
18
On January 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a discovery dispute letter requesting a protective order
19
precluding defendant Benihana National Corporation from proceeding with class member
20
depositions altogether, or in the alternative, from proceeding with the depositions as currently
21
noticed. Defendant filed a response letter today.
22
Pursuant to an order filed concurrently herewith, the briefing schedule for the class
23
certification motion has been enlarged. The response brief is now due February 6 and the reply is
24
due February 21. Given this enlarged briefing schedule, there is no need to proceed with the
25
depositions noticed for January 11, 12, 13, and 14, especially given the fact that the subpoenas to
26
notice the depositions were served on January 6 and January 9, due to defendant’s attempt to
27
complete the depositions prior to the previous due date of their opposition brief. Defendant shall
28
not proceed with the depositions as currently noticed. Defendant must renotice their depositions
1
in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Supplemental Order filed in this
2
action.
3
Plaintiffs also contend that defendant should be precluded from deposing absentee class
4
members because this would “undermine one of the advantages of the class device, which in
5
appropriate cases, allows parties and the Court to adjudicate liability as to a group without
6
requiring individual testimony from class members” (Br. 3). Defendant seeks to depose the 11
7
absent class members who submitted declarations in support of the motion for class certification.
8
Defendant is permitted to take the deposition of absent class members but is not permitted, at this
9
time, to take more than ten depositions in total.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
Dated: January 10, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?