Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 134

PROTECTIVE ORDER RE 3/10/2011 DEPOSITIONS. Signed by Judge LARSON on 3/10/2011. (jllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2011)

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Doc. 134

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Affinity Labs of Texas, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Apple, Inc, Defendants. ________________________________/

No. C 09-4436 CW (JL)

12 13 14 15 16

Order granting Protective Order (Docket # 132)

Discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Claudia Wilken) 17 under 28 U.S.C. section 636(b). The Court received the parties' separate statements 18 (docket Numbers 132 and 133) submitted March 9 under this Court's Standing Order. The 19 parties had met and conferred in person and by telephone, but were unable to resolve their 20 dispute. Apple requests a protective order that two third-party depositions that Affinity 21 noticed by subpoena for March 10 not take place. Its basis for the request is that Affinity 22 has exceeded the 70-hour cap on depositions. This cap was agreed on by the parties in 23 their stipulation signed March 8 and adopted and ordered by Judge Wilken on March 9. 24 (Docket Number 131, Order at 1:17-19). Apple alleges that Affinity already used 74 hours 25 of deposition time. Affinity's counsel has traveled to California from Texas for the two 26 depositions scheduled for today and only been advised at the last minute that Apple 27 28

C-09-4436 ORDER

Page 1 of 2
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

objected to the depositions, even though the parties had submitted a discovery scheduling stipulation to Judge Wilken the day before. In its overlong separate statement (twice the page limit permitted by the Standing Order), Affinity blames Apple for the excess deposition hours that Affinity has expended - it claims Apple did not produce documents until the last minute, and that Apple not only produced too many FRCP 30(b)(6) witnesses, but also did not prepare them adequately. Affinity also claims that Apple inaccurately counted the deposition hours, by adding up total video running time, including speaking objections and videographer's comments. Affinity claims that this extraneous time is very extensive, but it would have to review all 74 hours to determine how much to exclude from actual deposition time. This Court finds that the dispute in this case could ultimately involve a decision whether or not the deposition cap has been exceeded and whether the deposition cap should be raised, due to alleged discovery delays by Apple. Accordingly, this dispute exceeds the scope of the referral to this Court. The parties' appropriate course of action is to seek a decision by Judge Wilken whether the deposition cap has been exceeded and, if so, whether there is good cause to raise it. Apple's request for a protective order is granted, and the parties are referred to Judge Wilken for any further proceedings on this issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 10, 2011 __________________________________ JAMES LARSON United States Magistrate Judge
G:\JLALL\CASES\CIV-REF\09-4436\Order grant 132.wpd

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

C-09-4436 ORDER

Page 2 of 2