Harris et al v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 34 Motion for Protective Order. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STARVONA HARRIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 v. BEST BUY STORES, L.P., ORDER TERMINATING STARVONA HARRIS'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: Dkt. Nos. 34, 35 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG (KAW) 12 13 On June 3, 2017, Plaintiff Starvona Harris filed a motion for protective order to prevent 14 Defendant Best Buy from deposing her in this lawsuit in light of her prior deposition in the related 15 case, Starvona Harris v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., Case No. 15-cv-00657-HSG. (Pl.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 16 35 at 1.) On June 5, 2017, the pending motion and all other discovery disputes were referred to 17 the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 39.) 18 Pursuant to the undersigned’s standing order, discovery disputes between the parties must 19 be addressed in a joint letter. (Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13.) Accordingly, The 20 Court TERMINATES the motion for protective order and orders the parties to meet and confer in 21 good faith to resolve the dispute without further court intervention. 22 To aid the parties in their meet and confer efforts, a cursory review of Plaintiff’s motion 23 indicates that she mistakenly relies on Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 250 F.R.D. 452, 24 454 (N.D. Cal. 2008), in support of her position that she is entitled to a protective order. (Pl.’s 25 Mot. at 9.) Hynix is easily distinguishable on the facts, as it was one of three, related patent cases, 26 and, to minimize the number of depositions, the district court issued a case management order that 27 required that 28 [a]ll depositions or other sworn testimony in the Rambus Related Actions may be used by any party in the Rambus NDCal Cases as if 1 2 taken in each of the Rambus NDCal Cases. A party shall be allowed to take a further deposition with respect to new issues with which it is concerned. A party shall not repeat prior lines of questioning of a deponent. 3 250 F.R.D. at 454. Indeed, in Hynix, the court held a lengthy case management conference and 4 solicited competing case management proposals before adopting the “cross-use” provision 5 Plaintiff seeks to have the Court impose. Id. at 456. The undersigned, however, is unaware of a 6 similar order being entered in this case. 7 In the event that the parties’ meet and confer efforts fail to fully resolve this dispute, they 8 shall file a joint letter not to exceed five pages, in which they provide a detailed summary of each 9 party’s final substantive position, including relevant legal authority. Id. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 6, 2017 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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?