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)

Download PDF
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?