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)

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