Mazzaferro v. Stanaland et al

Filing 100

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 90 Joint discovery letter and 92 Motion for Protective Order.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2013)

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
RONALD MAZZAFERRO,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),
v.

14

MANSUETTO LENCI,

15

No. C-11-04097-SI (DMR)
ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTER DATED MARCH 15, 2013
[DOCKET NO. 90] AND PLAINTIFF’S
TENTATIVE MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER [DOCKET NO.
92]

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

Before the court is the Joint Discovery Letter dated March 15, 2013 (“Letter”) [Docket No.

18

90] filed by Plaintiff Ronald Mazzaferro (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Mansuetto Lenci

19

(“Defendant”). Also before the court is Plaintiff’s Tentative Motion for Protective Order

20

(“Tentative Motion”) [Docket No. 92]. For the reasons stated below, both motions are DENIED.

21

The Letter describes two discovery disputes. The first dispute regards a subpoena served by

22

Plaintiff upon Edith Mazzaferri, who is not a party to this case. Letter at 3 (referencing Docket No.

23

83 at 5-6 and Docket No. 74 at 3, Ex. A). Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Mazzaferri’s responses are

24

inadequate. This issue was not properly raised before the court because Defendant is not the subject

25

of the subpoena. Plaintiff is directed to meet and confer with Ms. Mazzaferri (or her counsel, if she

26

is represented) regarding the adequacy of her responses to the subpoena. If Plaintiff and Ms.

27

Mazzaferri or her counsel are unable to reach an agreement, Plaintiff must follow the court’s

28

Standing Order regarding judicial intervention on discovery issues.

1

The second dispute in the Letter regards accounting documents related to the Mazzaferro

2

Trust. Letter at 3 (referencing Docket No. 83 at 6-7). This issue is not ripe for this court’s

3

intervention because Plaintiff has not served discovery requests in this case on any party or third

4

party seeking those documents.

5

In the Tentative Motion, Plaintiff argues that the deposition notice that Defendant served

6

upon him on March 15, 2013 is defective because it provides inadequate notice in advance of the

7

deposition. The Federal Rules require that “reasonable written notice” be given to a party in

8

advance of a deposition by oral questions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). During the discovery hearing

9

on October 25, 2012, Defendant stated that he had noticed Plaintiff’s deposition four times. [Docket
No. 68 at 9.] Also during the discovery hearing, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would be deposed

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

on December 14, 2012. Therefore, Plaintiff had adequate notice of his deposition and the deposition

12

notice served by Defendant was proper.

13

Following a discussion at the motion hearing on April 23, 2013 regarding Plaintiff’s

14

assertions of Fifth Amendment privilege during the March 28, 2013 deposition, Plaintiff agreed to

15

have his deposition retaken by Defendant. Plaintiff also agreed to pay Defendant’s reasonable travel

16

expenses to the site of the deposition (the parties anticipate that the deposition will convene in Santa

17

Rosa), and the cost of the deposition. The parties shall promptly meet and confer regarding the date

18

for the deposition.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: April 23, 2013

22
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2