Lam et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 194

ORDER REGARDING NOVEMBER 16, 2011 DISCOVERY LETTER 192 . Signed by Judge Beeler on 11/22/2011. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 Oakland Division ALFREDO LAM, et al., 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 No. C 08-04702 PJH (LB) Plaintiffs, v. 13 14 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., 15 ORDER REGARDING NOVEMBER 16, 2011 DISCOVERY LETTER Defendants. _____________________________________/ [ECF No. 192] 16 17 Following a telephonic discovery conference, on October 17, 2011, the court granted Plaintiffs’ 18 request to compel CCSF’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Order, ECF No. 191 at 6. On November 16, 19 2011, the parties submitted a second discovery letter, which outlined two issues that arose during 20 CCSF’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. 11/16/2011 Joint Discovery Letter, ECF No. 192. Specifically, 21 Plaintiffs contend that CCSF’s deponent was inadequately prepared to testify about all disciplinary 22 actions taken against Juvenile Probation Department employees in the 8320 Juvenile Counselor and 23 8322 Senior Counselor job classifications from 2005 to present. Id. at 1-3. They also claim that 24 Plaintiff Alfredo Lam was entitled to attend the deposition, including during the examination about 25 complaints made about the individual defendants in this matter. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs request that the 26 court order CCSF’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent to appear and testify substantively on these issues. Id. 27 With regard to the first issue, the scope of the deposition in the notice is the minimum about 28 which the witness must be prepared to testify. See Detoy v. City and County of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D. 362, 366 (N.D. Cal. 2000). And a corporation has a duty under Rule 30(b)(6) to provide a C 08-04702 PJH (LB) ORDER RE 11/16/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER 1 witness who is knowledgeable in order to provide binding answers on behalf of the corporation. See 2 Great American Ins. Co. of New York v. Yegas Constr. Co., Inc., 25 1 F.R.D. 534, 538 (D. Nev. 3 2008). But Rule 30(b)(6) is not designed to be a memory contest. Id. at 539. Here, CCSF’s 4 deponent was unable to answer questions that were encompassed by the notice. But CCSF 5 represents that the level of detail sought went beyond that to which the parties implicitly agreed. 6 11/16/2011 Joint Discovery Letter, ECF No. 192 at 5. And Plaintiffs provided no argument that 7 they did not make this representation or that the information sought would not require tremendous 8 recall. Additionally, CCSF states that it has provided all the requested information in other forms 9 (including compilations of records). Id. at 6. Given these factors, the court finds that CCSF’s 10 deponent’s responses were sufficient. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires parties to work together in good faith to resolve 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 discovery disputes pertaining to protective orders before bringing them to the attention of the court. 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). With regard to Lam’s presence at the deposition when the deponent was 14 asked to testify about other employees’ personnel records, CCSF describes the steps it undertook to 15 affirmatively address the issue prior to the deposition. 11/16/2011 Joint Discovery Letter, ECF No. 16 192 at 4. From its unchallenged description of its discussions with Plaintiffs, the court finds that 17 CCSF did not need to seek a protective order prior to the deposition based on the implicit 18 representations made by Plaintiffs. 19 Based on the foregoing discussion, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ requests. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: November 17, 2011 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 08-04702 PJH (LB) ORDER RE 11/16/2011 DISCOVERY LETTER 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?