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

Filing 192

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

Download PDF
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

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?