American Steel & Stairways, Inc. et al v. Lexington Insurance Company et al

Filing 97

ORDER regarding 96 Discovery Letter Brief filed by Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Lexington Insurance Company; Order denying 95 Plaintiff's Request for Telephonic Phone Conference as moot. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 12/9/2013. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2013)

1
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

AMERICAN STEEL & AIRWAYS, INC., et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, et
al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: CV 12-03103-JST (KAW)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE;
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
LETTER
(Dkt. Nos. 95 & 96)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On December 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a declaration and request for telephonic conference

14

to enforce the Court’s meet and confer requirement. (Dkt. No. 95.) The parties have a pending

15

discovery dispute regarding the videotaping of upcoming depositions. Plaintiffs noticed the

16

depositions to be videotaped, and Defendants cross-noticed those same depositions seeking to

17

videotape both the deponent and the examiner. Plaintiffs objected to only taping the examiner

18

and the deponent, while not taping the deponent’s counsel.

19

Plaintiffs’ counsel R. Ashley Applewhite declared that she had attempted to meet and

20

confer with Defense counsel Traci Ribiero to prepare a joint statement that complied with the

21

Court’s Standing Order, but was unsuccessful. (See generally Decl. of R. Ashley Applewhite,

22

“Applewhite Decl.,” Dkt. No. 95.)

23

On December 9, 2013, Defendants filed a letter in response. (Dkt. No. 96.) The letter

24

provided Defendants’ rationale for videotaping the examiner. In support of their unorthodox

25

position, Defendants offer an unpublished case from an Ohio appellate court, which does not

26

involve a deposition, and so is inapposite. Defendants contend that it would be prejudiced by the

27

Court’s refusal to allow it to record its own video through its own videographer. While they do

28

have a right to have their own videographer memorialize the proceeding, that right does not

1

extend to videotaping the examiner, whose credibility has no bearing on the veracity of the

2

witness’s testimony.

3

It is unclear whether the parties sufficiently met and conferred. Nevertheless, as time is

4

short and both parties have submitted their positions regarding the pending dispute, the Court will

5

resolve this dispute without further meet and confer by allowing both sides to separately

6

videotape the depositions, but only the deponent will be videotaped. Accordingly, the Court

7

DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for a telephonic conference as moot.

8

To clarify, going forward, the parties are asked to meet and confer telephonically before

9

filing any joint letters with the Court. Furthermore, any joint letter should contain relevant legal

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

authority in support of each side’s respective position.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2013

___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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

2