Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al v. Centex Homes

Filing 182

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu re 178 Discovery Letter Brief.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY,

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C-11-03638 DMR
ORDER ON MAY 13, 2013 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER

v.

14

CENTEX HOMES,

15

Defendant.
___________________________________/

16
17

Before the court is the parties’ May 13, 2013 joint discovery letter. [Docket No. 178 (Joint

18

Letter).] The court finds that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant

19

to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

20

The parties’ dispute centers around the scheduling of the deposition of Plaintiff Travelers

21

Property Casualty Company’s (“Travelers”) rebuttal expert witness, Carol Langford. The parties

22

agreed that as a rebuttal expert, Ms. Langford’s deposition would take place after Travelers took the

23

deposition of Defendant Centex Homes’s (“Centex”) expert. Travelers deposed Centex’s expert on

24

April 9, 2013, and shortly thereafter offered three potential dates in June for Ms. Langford’s

25

deposition. (Jt. Letter 2.) Unhappy with those dates, Centex issued a subpoena to Ms. Langford for

26

a May 7, 2013 deposition. Travelers then advised Centex that Ms. Langford is unavailable for

27

deposition in May 2013 due to her other commitments as an expert witness and her work as a law

28

1

school professor. Travelers now seeks a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) protective order that

2

Ms. Langford’s deposition not take place prior to June 17, 2013. (Jt. Letter 2-3.)

3

Centex complains that Ms. Langford refused to comply with a validly issued subpoena, and

court to order Ms. Langford to appear for deposition within three days of the filing of the letter. (Jt.

6

Letter 7.) However, Centex has not identified any reason why Ms. Langford’s deposition must take

7

place in May. Discovery has closed, there are no upcoming motion deadlines, and there is no trial

8

date set in this matter. The next hearing in the case is not until July 23, 2013. The only justification

9

Centex provides for its request for an order that Ms. Langford appear in May is the assertion that

10

Travelers’ refusal to produce Ms. Langford until June violates the spirit of the parties’ agreement

11

regarding the scheduling of the expert depositions. (Jt. Letter 9.) However, Travelers represents to

12

the court that the only reason Ms. Langford’s deposition cannot take place in May is because of her

13

own schedule. As Centex has offered no countervailing reason for the deposition to be conducted

14

before June, Centex’s request that the court order Ms. Langford to appear in May is denied. Ms.

15

Langford’s deposition shall take place on a date of Centex’s choosing in June 2013 that works for

16

Ms. Langford’s schedule.

Dated: May 17, 2013

M. Ryu

NO

21

I

DONNA M. e Donna
Judg RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

RT

22

ER

H

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

A

20

ERED

ORD
T IS SO

R NIA

19

LI

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FO

S

18

RT
U
O

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

17

UNIT
ED

For the Northern District of California

challenges Travelers’ contention that she is unavailable in May. (Jt. Letter 7-8.) Centex asks the

5

United States District Court

4

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C