Hardin v. Mendocino Coast District Hospital et al
Filing
141
Discovery Order re: Depositions. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 6/6/2019. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2019)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
ELLEN HARDIN,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
11
Case No. 17-cv-05554-JST (TSH)
ORDER CONCERNING DEPOSITIONS
v.
MENDOCINO COAST DISTRICT
HOSPITAL, et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
13
The Court had another call with the parties today about scheduling depositions. For the
14
reasons stated on the record, the Court ORDERS that Amy McColley’s deposition shall take place
15
on June 14, 2019 at 12:30 p.m. in San Francisco.
16
The situation with respect to Lynne Bradley’s deposition is less clear. Two days ago it was
17
the Court’s understanding that Plaintiff alone had attempted to subpoena her. The Court observed
18
that the subpoena was invalid because Bradley lives in Mexico. ECF No. 137. The Court noted
19
that Bradley could make herself available for a deposition if she wanted to. Id. Subsequent to that
20
hearing, it has now emerged that MCDH wants to depose Bradley whether or not Plaintiff does.
21
Further, though MCDH has taken no steps to legally require Bradley to appear for a deposition, its
22
attorneys are in contact with her, and she is willing to be deposed in San Francisco on July 1 or 2,
23
dates that Plaintiff’s counsel is unavailable because of a scheduled medical procedure.
24
This is a completely different situation. It is one thing to tell the Plaintiff her subpoena is
25
no good and that if she wants to depose Bradley she must either accept the dates the witness
26
prefers or forego the deposition entirely – that is the consequence of an invalid subpoena. But it is
27
another if MCDH can get a witness who is beyond the subpoena power of the Court to voluntarily
28
appear for a deposition that it wants to take, and then to tell the Plaintiff that the only dates that
1
will work are those when her counsel is unavailable. That’s just unfair. The Court ORDERS the
2
parties to meet and confer about alternative dates for Bradley’s deposition. If there are none that
3
will work before the close of fact discovery, the parties should consider submitting a stipulation
4
and proposed order to the District Judge to allow this deposition to take place after the close of
5
fact discovery.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated: June 6, 2019
9
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate 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
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?