First One Lending Corporation et al v. The Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 4

ORDER terminating 1 MOTION to Quash filed by First One Lending Corporation, John Vescera; 2 MOTION to Shorten Time filed by First One Lending Corporation, John Vescera.. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 06/06/2014. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2014)

1
2
3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4
5
6
7

FIRST ONE LENDING CORPORATION, et
al.,

8
9

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 3:14-mc-80160-RS (KAW)
ORDER TERMINATING MOTION TO
QUASH AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER
SHORTENING TIME

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

THE HARTFORD CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

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

The above-captioned miscellaneous action was referred to the undersigned on June 5,
2014. Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company ("Hartford") has subpoenaed Casey
McNamara for deposition. (Mot. to Quash, Dkt. No. 1.) McNamara represented Neighborhood
Assistance Corporation of America ("NACA") when it sued First One Lending Corporation and
John Vescera for disparagement, copying of an advertising idea, and slogan infringement. (Id. at
2.) After the case settled, First One Lending Corporation and John Vescera ("Plaintiffs") sued
Hartford for bad faith denial of insurance coverage in connection with the NACA lawsuit. (Id. at
3.) That case is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. (Id. at 1.)
Plaintiffs move to quash the subpoena propounded by Hartford. (Id.) They also move for
a protective order "prohibiting Hartford from further harassing discovery attempts directed at
McNamara" and ask that the Court hear their motion on shortened time. (Id.; Mot. to Shorten
Time, Dkt. No. 2.)
The Court has reviewed the moving papers. Given that McNamara's deposition is
scheduled to take place on the same date, June 10, 2014, that fact discovery is scheduled to close

1

in the underlying action, the parties are ordered to meet and confer to decide whether McNamara's

2

deposition is necessary in light of the discovery that has already been completed in this case,

3

including the deposition of defense counsel in the NACA case and the production of over 8,000

4

pages of documents. (See Miller Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6.) The parties should also seriously consider the

5

likelihood that the attorney work product doctrine or the attorney client privilege may

6

significantly narrow the scope of McNamara's deposition. (See Miller Decl. ¶¶ 5, 6.)

7

If the parties' meet and confer efforts are unsuccessful, the deposition should proceed as

8

scheduled. During the deposition, the parties may, after exhausting good faith attempts to resolve

9

disputed issues, contact the Court through the courtroom deputy. See Civil L.R. 37-1(b). If the
Court is unavailable, the deposition shall proceed with objections noted for the record. See Judge

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Westmore's General Order ¶ 16.

12

Furthermore, if it becomes apparent during the deposition that the sole purpose of the

13

discovery tool was to harass the deponent or unnecessarily multiply the proceedings, the Court

14

will entertain a proper motion for sanctions and may impose sanctions under the Court's inherent

15

authority or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 6, 2014

___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2