Ruiz v. Chase Bank USA, National Association

Filing 20

Order by Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 18 Discovery Letter Brief.(ygrlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 LORI RUIZ, 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, vs. Case No.: 13-cv-01508-YGR ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER LOCATION OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S 30(b)(6) WITNESS CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant. Northern District of California United States District Court 12 The parties have filed a joint letter brief concerning a dispute over the location of the 13 14 15 deposition of Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness. (Dkt. No. 18.) Plaintiff noticed the deposition to occur in San Jose, California at the offices of Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff acknowledges that “[t]ypically, the corporation will be deposed at its principal place of business.” However, she argues that this 16 Court is not bound by that rule and may designate a different location where, as here, counsel for 17 both parties are located in the Northern District, there are “likely” to be discovery disputes during the 18 deposition, only one deposition of a corporate representative is sought, and Defendant would suffer 19 no financial hardship in having a representative travel to California. 20 Defendant objects to the venue of the deposition because it has no knowledgeable witnesses 21 in California. Rather, Defendant has its principal offices in the State of Delaware, and argues it is 22 entitled to have the deposition in that location. However, Defendant notes that it does have a 23 knowledgeable witness in Elgin, Illinois (near Chicago) and would be amenable to holding the 24 deposition there. Finally, Defendant asks this Court to order that the deposition at issue occur on 25 days consecutive to Rule 30(b)(6) depositions in two other cases in the Northern District of 26 California—neither of which are formally related to this action nor assigned to the undersigned. 27 As both parties recognize, there is a presumption that the deposition of a corporate designee 28 should take place at the corporation’s principal place of business. Fausto v. Credigy Servs. Corp., 1 251 F.R.D. 427, 429 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The presumption can be overcome depending on such factors 2 as: (1) the location of counsel in the forum district, (2) the number of representatives a party seeks to 3 depose, (3) the likelihood of significant discovery disputes, (4) whether the parties to be deposed 4 often engage in travel for business purposes, and (5) the equities with regard to the nature of the 5 claim and the parties’ relationship. See Mahroom v. Best Western Intern., Inc., No. C07–02351 6 HRL, 2007 WL 2701325, at *1 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2007) (citing Moore’s Federal Practice, 3d. § 7 30.20). District courts have wide discretion to establish the time and place of depositions. Hyde & 8 Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994). 9 The Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing such that this Court should Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the deposition of Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness occur at its 12 Northern District of California deviate from the general rule regarding the location of depositions for corporate designees. 11 United States District Court 10 principal place of business in Delaware. However, in light of Defendant’s offer to hold the 13 deposition in Illinois, which Plaintiff may prefer over Delaware, the Court will also permit that the 14 deposition occur there if the parties so stipulate. In addition, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request 15 that the deposition occur on consecutive days with depositions in other actions. 16 Moreover, the Court notes that Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4) provides that “[t]he parties may 17 stipulate--or the court may on motion order--that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote 18 means.” If Plaintiff finds it more cost-effective to take the deposition via video, she may seek a 19 stipulation from Defendant or apply to the Court for such an order. 20 This Order terminates Dkt. No. 18. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: October 29, 2013 __________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 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?