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