Mendez v. R+L Carriers, Inc. et al
Filing
52
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 29 Motion to Compel and denying 32 Motion for Sanctions (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
14
ROBERT MENDEZ, an individual,
RANDY J. MARTINEZ, an individual,
ANTHONY A. HARANG, an individual,
KEVIN JOHNSON, SR., an individual on
behalf of all others similarly situated and
the general public,
15
16
Case No.: CV 11-02478-CW (JSC)
ORDER 1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL, AND 2)
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS (Dkt. Nos. 29, 32)
Plaintiff,
v.
17
18
19
20
R+L CARRIERS, INC., a Corporation,
R+L CARRIERS SHARES SERVICES,
LLC, a Corporation, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
21
22
23
Named Plaintiffs Robert Mendez, Randy J. Martinez, Anthony A. Harang, and Kevin
24
Johnson, Sr. seek to represent a class of commercial truck drivers in this wage and hour
25
lawsuit. Defendants are national motor freight carrier companies R+L Carriers, Inc., and R+L
26
Carriers Shared Services, LLC. Now pending before the Court are (1) Defendants’ motion to
27
compel the further questioning of Plaintiffs Randy J. Martinez and Robert Mendez and for an
28
order directing counsel to refrain from asserting improper objections and instructions not to
1
answer (Dkt. No. 29); and (2) Defendants’ motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs and their
2
counsel in the amount of $4,755.00. (Dkt. No. 32). Having considered the parties’ filings and
3
having had the benefit of oral argument on April 5, 2012, the Court DENIES both motions.
LEGAL STANDARD
4
authorized method of obtaining discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Federal Rule of Civil
7
Procedure 30(d)(1) states: “Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is
8
limited to 1 day of 7 hours. The court must allow additional time consistent with Rule
9
26(b)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any
10
other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.” “[A] court should begin with the
11
Northern District of California
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a deposition by oral examination is an
6
United States District Court
5
presumption that the seven-hour limit was carefully chosen and that extensions of that limit
12
should be the exception, not the rule.” Robertson v. Bair, 424 F.R.D. 130, 138 (D D.C. 2007).
13
During a deposition, an attorney may properly state objections for the record in a
14
concise, nonargumentative, and nonsuggestive manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). As a general
15
rule, “instructions not to answer questions at a deposition are improper.” Detoy v. City and
16
County of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D. 362, 365 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Under Federal Rule of Civil
17
Procedure 30(c)(2), a party may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary: (1) to
18
preserve a privilege, (2) to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or (3) to present a motion
19
under Rule 30(d)(3)—specifically, a motion to terminate or limit the deposition “on the
20
ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys,
21
embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (c)(2), (d)(3). If a party
22
believes that a particular question asked of a deponent is improper for any other reason, that
23
party may object; however, “the examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to
24
any objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2); Universal Trading & Inv. Co. v. Kiritchenko, No. C-
25
99-03073, 2007 WL 2300740, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2007).
26
//
27
//
28
//
2
1
DISCUSSION
2
A. Defendants’ Motion to Compel
3
Defendants’ Motion to Compel seeks twofold relief: (1) further opportunity to depose
4
named Plaintiffs Randy Martinez and Robert Mendez, and (2) an order directing counsel to
5
refrain from asserting improper objections and instructions not to answer during further
6
depositions. Defendants contend that “the further questioning of Martinez and Mendez was
7
made necessary due to the improper actions of their counsel.” (Dkt. No. 29, p. 16.) The
8
deposition of Mr. Mendez lasted five hours and forty-six minutes, throughout which Plaintiffs
9
asserted approximately 265 objections and six instructions not to respond. Mr. Martinez’s
Northern District of California
deposition totaled five hours and fifty-one minutes, and Plaintiffs’ counsel objected some 293
11
United States District Court
10
times and gave twelve instructions not to answer.
12
Although Plaintiffs’ objections were excessive, the Court concludes that Defendants
13
are not entitled to further depositions of either Plaintiff Mendez or Plaintiff Martinez as
14
Defendants have not identified the subjects on which they need to further depose these
15
Plaintiffs. Defendants voluntarily ended Mr. Mendez’s deposition, noting that counsel had no
16
further questions. (Dkt. No. 30-7, p. 8.) With respect to Mr. Martinez’s deposition,
17
Defendants have not identified any subject matters that would justify having the witness
18
reappear for a deposition. Significantly, a majority of the questions that Plaintiffs’ counsel
19
improperly instructed Mr. Martinez not to answer were ultimately addressed by the witness.
20
For instance, Plaintiffs’ counsel originally instructed Mr. Martinez not to respond to questions
21
such as “[w]here are you presently employed,” and “in what industry are you currently
22
employed.” (Dkt. No. 30-1, p. 14.) However, Mr. Martinez later divulged this information
23
after Defendants stipulated that they would not contact his employer. (Dkt. 30-2, p. 19.) If
24
any questions remain that Defendants feel were not answered by the witness, Defendants may
25
seek responses to those queries by propounding interrogatories consistent with Federal Rule
26
of Civil Procedure 33. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have not established that
27
further depositions of Mr. Martinez or Mr. Mendez are warranted.
28
3
Nonetheless, as noted at oral argument, the Court cautions Plaintiffs to refrain from
1
2
asserting continuous objections and improper instructions not to answer during further
3
depositions. Defendants are entitled to question the plaintiffs without being constantly
4
interrupted by objections. The Court encourages the parties to agree to preserve all
5
objections to form. Such an agreement means that objections as to form need not be made
6
during the deposition at all and will not be waived should the deposition transcript be used in
7
motion practice or at trial. Any other objections must be “stated concisely in a
8
nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). Further, counsel
9
shall only instruct witnesses not to answer questions based on the grounds set forth in
10
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2).
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
B. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions
12
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants have presented arguments in support of an award of
13
sanctions against the opposing party in the instant case. Under Federal Rule of Civil
14
Procedure 30(d)(2), “[t]he court may impose an appropriate sanction—including the
15
reasonable expenses and attorneys fees incurred by any party—on a person who impedes,
16
delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.” Id. In addition, Federal Rule of
17
Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) provides that the party who prevails on a motion to compel is
18
entitled to its “reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s
19
fees.” Id.
The Court finds that the imposition of sanctions against either Plaintiffs or Defendants
20
21
is not warranted at this time. However, in their interactions at all future depositions, both
22
parties should take care to abide by the principles of civility set forth in Northern District of
23
California General Order 40.
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
4
CONCLUSION
1
2
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that further depositions of Mr.
3
Martinez and Mr. Mendez are not warranted in the present case. Accordingly, Defendants’
4
motions to compel and for sanctions (Dkt. Nos. 29, 32) are DENIED.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 30, 2012
7
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?