Spears et al v. Washington Mutual, Inc. et al

Filing 341

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 339 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 3. Plaintiffs' request for extended deposition is granted. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2013)

1
*E-FILED: October 10, 2013*

2
3
4
5
6
7

NOT FOR CITATION

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
FELTON A. SPEARS, JR. and SIDNEY
SCHOLL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

12
13

Plaintiffs,
14

Case No. 5:08-cv-00868 RMW (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 3
[Re: Docket No. 339]

v.
15
16

FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT (a/k/a
eAppraiseIT, LLC), a Delaware limited
liability company,

17

Defendant<< (s) >>.

18
19

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 3, plaintiffs request that the deposition of

20

non-party Peter Gailitis be extended for an additional 30-minute examination by telephone. This

21

court is told that Gailitis was Chief Appraiser at defendant First American eAppraiseIT (EA)

22

during most of the period in which EA performed appraisal services for Washington Mutual. He

23

was deposed on September 17, 2013. Plaintiffs examined him for their allotted 4.5 hours. EA

24

deposed the witness for its allotted 2.5 hours. Plaintiffs said they wished to conduct a redirect

25

examination. Gailitis agreed to make himself available for a further 30-minute deposition to be

26

conducted by telephone on another day. 1 That is fine by plaintiffs. EA, however, objects to any

27
1

28

Prior to the deposition, Gailitis said that he would be willing to stay beyond the presumptive7–
hour limit to make sure that his deposition would be completed that day. During the final break in

1

further examination of Gailitis, saying that it never agreed to a multi-day deposition. This matter

2

is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration

3

of the parties’ respective positions, the court grants plaintiffs’ request for an additional 30-minute

4

telephone examination.

5

With respect to EA’s argument that the instant DDJR is untimely, the court will credit

6

plaintiffs’ assertion that they were trying to meet-and-confer to resolve a dispute as to which they

7

believed the parties had not reached an impasse.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

“Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7
hours.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). The court must allow additional time consistent with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(2) if needed for a fair examination. Id.
The court finds good cause for the requested extension here. All indications are that

12

Gailitis is a key witness. Plaintiffs wish to conduct a brief redirect examination, to last no more

13

than 30 minutes by phone (and, indeed, plaintiffs are willing to split the 30 minutes with EA, if

14

EA wishes). Gailitis has no problem with the additional examination, notwithstanding that he has

15

already been deposed by the parties for 7 hours. EA has already prepared for, and completed, its

16

examination of Gailitis. The court does not find that preparation for an additional 30-minute

17

telephonic examination will impose an undue burden.

18

As for timing, EA says that the parties already have a full deposition schedule in these last

19

two weeks leading up to the October 15 fact discovery cutoff. Nevertheless, given the limited

20

extension of Gailitis’ deposition being granted here, this court finds that there is some leeway in

21

the current case schedule to allow his further deposition to be conducted beyond the October 15

22

cutoff date without jeopardizing the remaining case deadlines. Accordingly, Gailitis deposition is

23

extended for an additional 30-minute telephonic examination to be completed before the

24

November 15 expert disclosure deadline and on a date that will not require modification of the

25

current case schedule. If EA decides that it wishes to ask the deponent further questions, the 30

26

minutes shall be split equally between plaintiffs and defendant. The parties and Gailitis shall work

27
28

EA’s examination, however, Gailitis advised that he had to leave by 5:00 p.m. (Dkt. 339, DDJR
No. 3 at 2).
2

1

5:08-cv-00868-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Allison Lauren Libeu [e-mail]
Alvin Matthew Ashley [e-mail], [e-mail]
Angela M. Papalaskaris [e-mail], [e-mail]
Christopher J Clark [e-mail]
David A. Super [e-mail]
Ellen Mary M. Doyle [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Gretchen Freeman Cappio [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Harry Williams , IV [e-mail]
Janet Lindner Spielberg [e-mail]
Joel R. Hurt [e-mail]
John C. Hueston [e-mail]
John Charles Hueston [e-mail], [e-mail]
John M. Sorich [e-mail]
Jonathan Mark Lloyd [e-mail], [e-mail]
Joseph N. Kravec , Jr [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Justin Nathanael Owens [e-mail]
Kevin C Wallace [e-mail]
Khesraw Karmand [e-mail]
Kris Hue Chau Man [e-mail], [e-mail]
Lynn Lincoln Sarko [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Margaret Anne Keane [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Martin L. Fineman [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Michael D. Braun [e-mail], [e-mail]
Ryan E. Bull [e-mail]
Sam N. Dawood [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Stephen M. Ng [e-mail], [e-mail]
Stephen Michael Rummage [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Sung-Min Christopher Yoo [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Tana Lin [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Wyatt A. Lison [e-mail], [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4