Dao v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston

Filing 177

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 167 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HONG-NGOC T. DAO,

Case No. 14-cv-04749-SI

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
OF BOSTON,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Re: Dkt. No. 167

12
13

Plaintiff seeks relief from Magistrate Judge Laporte's April 22, 2016 order allowing

14

defendant to take the deposition of Kevin Gill. Judge Laporte's order stated, "The Court finds that

15

Kenneth Gill is no longer counsel of record and he is subject to deposition in his capacity as a

16

percipient witness. Although he may object to questions that involve attorney-client privileged

17

matters or attorney work product, questions such as those regarding his observations as her

18

significant other of Plaintiff’s disability and financial harm and his communications with

19

Defendant regarding her claim involve legitimate topics." Dkt. No. 165 at 1:15-19.

20

Plaintiff contends that the order is clearly erroneous because Mr. Gill, while no longer

21

counsel of record, is still one of plaintiff's lawyers. Plaintiff argues that depositions of opposing

22

counsel "are presumptively improper and require 'extremely' good cause, except in specific, rare

23

circumstances." Dkt. No. 167 at 1:4-6 (citing Carehouse Convalescent Hosp. v. Sup. Ct. (Sims),

24

143 Cal. App. 4th 1558 (2006)). Plaintiff asserts that Judge Laporte did not apply the correct legal

25

standard under Carehouse to determine whether defendant had demonstrated a need for Mr. Gill's

26

deposition.

27

The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for relief. The Court finds that under Carehouse,

28

defendant has demonstrated a need for Mr. Gill's deposition because, inter alia, plaintiff has

1

reserved her right to call Mr. Gill as an impeachment witness, Mr. Gill handled the interactions

2

with Liberty Life regarding plaintiff's claim starting in July 2014, and Mr. Gill is the source of the

3

loan alleged in the second amended complaint (SAC ¶ 133) relevant to plaintiff's claim for

4

financial damages. As Judge Laporte held, Mr. Gill is subject to deposition in his capacity as a

5

percipient witness, and Mr. Gill may object to questions that involve attorney-client privileged

6

matters or attorney work product.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: May 16, 2016

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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