Reed et al v. Duree et al
Filing
74
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating Defendants' #72 Motion for Protective Order. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
RICHARD REED, ET AL.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-07041-VC (KAW)
Plaintiffs,
8
ORDER TERMINATING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
v.
9
10
TERRY A. DUREE, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 72
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
On January 31, 2018, the district court reopened fact discovery for the limited purpose of
14
permitting Plaintiffs to take the deposition of Bret Yaple and referred the case to the undersigned
15
for discovery purposes. (Dkt. No. 71.)
16
On March 14, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for protective order pertaining to the Yaple
17
deposition. (Dkt. No. 72.) The undersigned does not, however, entertain discovery motions
18
between the parties, and instead requires parties to file joint discovery letters to address pending
19
discovery disputes. (Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶¶ 12-13,
20
http://cand.uscourts.gov/kaworders.) Accordingly, the motion for protective order is
21
TERMINATED, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the
22
pending dispute without court intervention.
23
If those efforts fail to fully resolve all issues of contention, the parties shall jointly write
24
and file a letter outlining any remaining disputes consistent with the Court’s Standing Order.
25
Upon receipt of the joint letter, the undersigned will determine whether a hearing is necessary or if
26
the dispute may be resolved without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).
27
28
Notwithstanding, based on a cursory review of the motion for protective order, the parties
are reminded that the district court reopened discovery for the limited purpose of conducting the
1
Yaple deposition after finding that “Yaple and David Castro, the defendants’ counsel, have
2
violated a number of discovery rules” and likely acted in bad faith. (Dkt. No. 68 at 1-2.) As a
3
result, the district court has already continued the trial schedule to reopen discovery due to Yaple
4
and Defendants’ apparent misconduct, so the parties should be hesitant to seek another
5
continuance due to the Yaple deposition.
6
While the Court recognizes that Defendants may be concerned about Yaple being
7
questioned about the recently-filed Platas case, the undersigned finds this concern to be
8
speculative and premature. Moreover, the Northern District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct
9
§ 9(e), as to depositions, provides that “[a] lawyer should only delay a deposition if necessary to
address legitimate scheduling conflicts. A lawyer should not delay a deposition for bad faith
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
purposes.” (Northern District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct,
12
https://cand.uscourts.gov/professional_conduct_guidelines.) Indeed, given the rapidly
13
approaching dispositive motion deadline and the unmeritorious nature of the motion, it appears to
14
have been filed for the improper purpose of delay, which constitutes a bad faith purpose. The
15
appropriate time to object to deposition questions is at the deposition, and only after the questions
16
are asked. If a question is asked that calls for privileged information, Yaple is free to object.
17
Nevertheless, the Court trusts that the parties (1) will immediately meet and confer and
18
schedule the deposition to occur within the next 10 days, and (2) will conduct themselves
19
professionally and in accordance with the deposition section of the Northern District’s Guidelines
20
for Professional Conduct ¶ 9, such that the Yaple deposition will go forward without incident.
21
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 15, 2018
______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
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?