James v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Filing 142

DISCOVERY ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James re 141 Discovery Letter Brief (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 Northern District of California 8 9 10 RICK JAMES, by and through THE JAMES AMBROSE JOHNSON, JR., 1999 TRUST, his successor in interest, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 11 No. C 11-1613 SI (MEJ) ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER (DKT. NO. 141) For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, 12 13 v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, 14 15 Defendant. _____________________________________/ 16 17 On December 20, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request that it order Defendant to 18 produce its Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition witness without a precondition that 19 the same deponent cannot later be deposed in their individual capacity. Dkt. No. 140. The parties 20 have now submitted a joint letter requesting clarification on two issues: (1) whether a witness can be 21 asked questions on the same topic twice; and (2) whether UMG is entitled to a protective order on 22 Topics 1 and 5 of Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Dkt. No. 141. As to the first issue, Plaintiffs 23 may ask the designated witness questions on the same topic in both their individual and 30(b)(6) 24 capacity; however, the questions should not be duplicative and should be limited to topics that are 25 within the witness’s designated role at the particular deposition (i.e., questions related to the 26 designee’s personal knowledge should not be asked in the 30(b)(6) deposition, and vice versa). 27 As to the second issue, the Court finds that Topic 1 is relevant, but overbroad. Accordingly, 28 the parties shall meet and confer in person for the purpose of limiting the scope of this topic. 1 Plaintiffs shall make a good faith effort to be more specific as to which categories of documents they 2 are concerned about, and also agree to reasonable limitations regarding UMG’s predecessors and 3 affiliates. Plaintiffs should be mindful that, if the Court later determines that they did not work with 4 UMG in a good faith effort to limit the scope of Topic 1, it shall grant UMG’s request for a protective 5 order. As to Topic 5, for the same reasons discussed in its previous Order, the Court GRANTS UMG 6 request for a protective order on this topic. See Dkt. No. 133 at 2, 4. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: January 8, 2013 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 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?