Adkins et al v. Apple Inc et al

Filing 126

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE. Pozderac's deposition is rescheduled from January 30, 2015 to March 2, 2015. The parties shall otherwise follow the proposed deposition schedule set out in 122 Apple's letter. Apple shall identify the specific names of its 30(b)(6) witnesses, and the specific dates of their depositions, as soon as that information is available and no later than 10 days before the depositions. If the parties are not able to resolve the dispute over certain training materials and other documents relevant to Pozderac's deposition on their own, they shall submit a joint letter by February 17, 2015 specifically describing the dispute and their respective positions. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 01/27/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FABRIENNE ENGLISH, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE

v.
9
10

APPLE INC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 122, 123

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

On January 20, 2015, after conducting a conference call with counsel for all parties, I
issued a brief order stating in relevant part:
The defendants have agreed to produce witnesses for 30(b)(6) depositions as well as
employees Bunn, Pozderac, Morrison, Linthicum, and the employees who spoke
[with] Ms. Lowthert. Plaintiffs have agreed to produce Ms. Galindo, Ms. English,
and Ms. Lowthert. These depositions shall be completed by March 31, 2015. If the
parties are unable to stipulate to the dates for these depositions by January 23, 2015, I
will set the dates. Any subpoenaed or otherwise relevant requested documents shall
be produced in advance of the depositions. The parties shall either file a stipulation
setting forth the schedule or each party may file a two page letter setting forth any
scheduling needs that the other party refuses to meet and I will set the depositions
myself.

20

Dkt. No. 120 at 1-2. On January 23, 2015, unable to reach agreement regarding the deposition

21

schedule and related document productions, each party submitted a two page letter. Dkt. Nos.

22

122, 123. Having read and considered the letters, I ORDER that:

23

1. Pozderac’s deposition is rescheduled from January 30, 2015 to March 2, 2015. The

24

parties shall meet and confer on the specific time of day and the location when and where the

25

deposition will occur. The parties shall otherwise follow the proposed deposition schedule set out

26

in Apple’s letter. See Dkt. No. 122. If the parties wish to stipulate to a different date for

27

Pozderac’s deposition, or to any other modification in the schedule, they may do so. Absent

28

stipulation, however, the parties shall adhere to Apple’s proposed deposition schedule.

1

2. Apple shall identify the specific names of its 30(b)(6) witnesses, and the specific dates

2

of their depositions, as soon as that information is available and no later than 10 days before the

3

depositions.

4

3. It appears that the parties will require assistance resolving a dispute over certain training

5

materials and other documents relevant to Pozderac’s deposition. If the parties are not able to

6

resolve this dispute on their own, they shall submit a joint letter by February 17, 2015 (the

7

deadline for the parties to raise with the Court any issues regarding defendants’ response to

8

plaintiffs’ outstanding documents requests, see Dkt. No. 120) specifically describing the dispute

9

and their respective positions.

10

Finally, it has come to my attention that I indicated in a prior order in this case that the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

parties must comply with the Civil Local Rule regarding line-spacing when submitting letters to

12

the Court regarding discovery disputes. See Dkt. No. 109; Civil L.R. 3-4(c). This was

13

inadvertent. The parties may use single-spaced formatting when submitting letters to the Court,

14

although the type may not be smaller than 12-point standard font.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2015
________________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2