Bohnert v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco et al

Filing 67

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE ABOUT NUMBER AND SCHEDULING OF DEPOSITIONS re 61 , 63 , 64 and 65 Discovery Letters. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/22/2015. Within the next week, the parties shall file a stipulation extending t he expert discovery deadlines to allow the non-expert depositions to be completed sufficiently in advance of the revised expert disclosure date. Expert discovery must be completed in advance of the settlement conference. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KIMBERLY BOHNERT,

Case No. 14-cv-02854-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP
OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE ABOUT NUMBER AND
SCHEDULING OF DEPOSITIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 61, 63, 64, 65

Defendants.

12
13

The parties dispute whether plaintiff should be permitted to take more than 10 depositions.

14

Dkt. Nos. 63-65. The parties have also been unable to schedule all of the depositions sufficiently

15

in advance of the expert discovery deadline.

16

The parties participated in a telephonic hearing today to discuss the dispute. As I stated

17

during the hearing, the plaintiff shall be limited to 10 depositions because she has not established

18

yet that she needs more than that. I will be inclined to permit the plaintiff to take additional

19

depositions if she can make a specific showing that additional depositions are necessary and not

20

cumulative, particularly if she can show that the initial depositions were conducted efficiently and

21

were not obviously cumulative. In this regard, if the defendant thinks that some of the identified

22

depositions will be cumulative, it should alert the plaintiff in writing within the next week so that

23

plaintiff may consider adjusting her list of deponents.

24

I encourage the defendants to agree to additional depositions if the plaintiff makes the

25

requisite showing of need. If the parties cannot reach agreement, they should file a joint letter no

26

later than July 15, 2015 identifying the disputed potential deponents and why the depositions are

27

or are not necessary. Plaintiff should also include a chart specifying the length of the depositions

28

that have been completed by that date.

1

The deposition dates outlined by the parties during the hearing are acceptable. Within the

2

next week, the parties shall file a stipulation extending the expert discovery deadlines to allow the

3

non-expert depositions to be completed sufficiently in advance of the revised expert disclosure

4

date. Expert discovery must be completed in advance of the settlement conference.

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 22, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2