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)

Download PDF
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?