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)

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 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

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?