Procongps, Inc. v. Star Sensor Technology, LLC., et al.,

Filing 192

ORDER RE DISCOVERY 183 191 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

PROCONGPS, INC.,

11
12

No. C 11-3975 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

v.

13

SKYPATROL, LLC, et al.,

14

Defendants.

/

15
16

Plaintiff Spireon (formerly ProconGPS) and defendants Skypatrol LLC, Jim Schumacher, and

17

Jim Schumacher LLC have submitted a discovery dispute regarding expert depositions for resolution.

18

Docket Nos. 183 and 191.1

19

The parties dispute whether defendants should be permitted to depose plaintiffs’ experts twice

20

– once after plaintiffs’ experts have issued initial reports, and again after those experts have issued

21

rebuttal reports. Defendants assert that “defendants’ experts should be able to take Spireon’s experts’

22

depositions into account when preparing their own reports.” Docket No. 183 at 3:8-9. Plaintiff

23

responds that the purpose of expert depositions is to develop cross-examination for trial or for a Daubert

24

motion, not to build a case for one’s own expert, and that two rounds of depositions is impractical and

25

wasteful.

26

The Court finds that defendants have not articulated a persuasive reason to require two rounds

27
1

28

The parties filed separate statements, which is contrary to the Court’s standing order directing
the parties to file a single statement regarding discovery disputes.

1

of depositions for plaintiffs’ experts in this case. See Enns Pontiac, Buick & GMC Truck v. Flores, No.

2

1:07cv01043 OWW DLB, 2011 WL 2787729, at *3-4 (E.D.Cal. July 11, 2011) (rejecting argument that

3

the plaintiffs needed to depose defense experts twice in order for the plaintiffs’ experts to prepare their

4

reports). The Court agrees with plaintiff that it is more efficient and economical to have a single round

5

of depositions, and accordingly the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to compel. The parties shall

6

meet and confer regarding the scheduling of depositions.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: May 22, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2