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)

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