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)

Download PDF
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

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?