Advanced Microtherm, Inc. v. Norman Wright Mechanical Equipment Corporation et al

Filing 1041

FURTHER INTERIM ORDER re 1004 Plaintiffs Motion for Order Requiring William Spencer and F.W. Spencer to Appear for Deposition and 995 Defendant F.W. Spencers Motion for Protective Order; and ORDER Continuing Hearing on Motions. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on 8/19/09. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 8/19/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADVANCED MICROTHERM, INC., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) NORMAN WRIGHT MECHANICAL ) EQUIP. CORP., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No.: C 04-2266 JW (PVT) FURTHER INTERIM ORDER RE PLA INT IFFS' MOTION FOR ORDER REQ U IR IN G WILLIAM SPENCER AND F.W. SPEN C ER TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION A N D DEFENDANT F.W. SPENCER'S MO TIO N FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MO TIO N S UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Presently pending before the court are two related motions regarding the depositions of William Spencer and Defendant F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc. ("F.W. Spencer"), and document requests to F.W. Spencer. The court previously issued an interim order directing the parties to meet and confer regarding dates certain for these two depositions, and directing Plaintiffs and Defendant F.W. Spencer to file, no later than August 14, 2009, their respective proposals for the deposition dates if no agreement could be reached. On August 17, 2009, both parties belatedly filed their respective proposals for the deposition dates. From the declarations submitted, it appears that Plaintiffs and Defendant F.W. Spencer tentatively agreed to September 4, 2009 and October 30, 2009 for the depositions, with Defendant F.W. Spencer reserving its right to object to certain conditions Plaintiffs seek to impose. On August 17, 2009, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant F.W. Spencer contacted chambers OR D E R, page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to request that the hearing on these motions set for August 18, 2009 be continued in light of progress being made through their meet and confer efforts. The court thus took the hearing off calendar subject to it being rescheduled by the parties. On August 18, 2009, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order continuing the hearing to September 8, 2009. Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this further interim order. Based on the briefs and arguments presented, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that William Spencer shall appear for deposition on September 4, 2009. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant F.W. Spencer shall appear for its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on October 30, 2009. F.W. Spencer has represented that William Spencer will appear on its behalf for this deposition. The court hereby orders that, absent further order of the court, William Spencer shall appear on behalf of F.W. Spencer for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Plaintiff may use the opportunity to question Mr. Spencer about any documents F.W. Spencer produces after the September 4, 2009 deposition, regardless of whether the questions fall within the subject matters included in the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. The subject matter specified in a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice determines the scope of preparation the designated witness must do; questions outside the subject matter specified in the notice are allowed within the scope of discovery set forth in Rule 26(b)(1). See Detoy v. City and County of San Francisco, 196 F.R.D. 362, 366-67 (N.D.Cal. 2000). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, absent further order of the court, the presumptive limit of seven hours applies to each of these depositions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on these motions is continued to 10:00 a.m. on September 8, 2009, with regard to the remaining issues not resolved by this order. Dated: 8/19/09 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge OR D E R, page 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?