Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al

Filing 483

ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE (Dkt. No. 482). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 9/7/2012. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, et al.,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 09-cv-0037 CW (JSC)
ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENT OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE (Dkt. No. 482)

v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Now pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute
regarding the length of the depositions of two of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. (Dkt. No. 482.)
The Court finds that the matter is suitable for determination without oral argument, pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b). Having considered the papers submitted to the Court, the Court
GRANTS Defendants’ request.
Defendants seek to exceed the seven hour deposition limit for two of Plaintiffs’ experts,
Dr. Steven Bird and Dr. Jeffery Laskin. Defendants contend that there is good cause to extend

25

the time for their depositions up to 14 hours each given the length and scope of their expert

26

reports. Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ request as premature.

27
28

The Court has granted broad discovery in this case based on the scope of this putative
class action with claims which cover multiple decades and four different government agencies.

1

This discovery has resulted in many millions of pages of documents and non-expert testimony

2

in excess of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A)’s limits. Given this broader context

3

and the fact that these experts appear to be offered to comment on the potential long-term

4

health effects of at least 28 different chemical substances, the medical inaccuracies of

5

Defendants’ outreach materials, and proper medical follow-up, Defendants have demonstrated

6

good cause to exceed Rule 30(d)(1)’s seven hour limit.1

7

Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall make Dr. Bird and Dr. Laskin available for up to fourteen

8

hours of deposition testimony each. The depositions shall be limited to seven hours per day

9

unless the parties agree otherwise. Although Defendants are entitled to up to 14 hours, they
should only use as much time as actually necessary.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

This Order disposes of Docket No. 482.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: September 7, 2012

14

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court notes that it was not provided with copies or excerpts from the expert reports, and
instead, relies upon representations made in the joint statement regarding the contents of their
expert reports.
1

2