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)

Download PDF
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 In support of their unorthodox 25 position, Defendants offer an unpublished case from an Ohio appellate court, which does not 26 involve a deposition, and so is inapposite.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

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?