Su v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration et al

Filing 176

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 146 defendants' Motion for Protective Order re the Deposition of Wende Hower. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2011)

1
2

*E-FILED 05-02-2011*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

No. C09-02838 JW (HRL)

HAIPING SU,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14
15
16

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION; CHRISTOPHER
SCOLESE; CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR.;
SIMON PETER WORDEN; ROBERT DOLCI;
REGINALD WADDELL; and DOES 1-100,

17

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
RE THE DEPOSITION OF WENDE
HOWER
[Re: Docket No. 146]

Defendants.
/

18
19

Defendants move for a protective order re the deposition of Wende Hower. Plaintiff

20

opposes the motion. The matter is deemed appropriate for determination without oral argument.

21

CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, this court grants

22

the motion.

23

Wende Hower is identified as the person who manages the process by which NASA

24

issues security badges for all employees, contractors, and visitors. In essence, plaintiff wants to

25

depose her about NASA’s badging process and decisions generally, as well as NASA’s badging

26

process and decisions as to plaintiff.

27
28

Judge Ware previously granted summary judgment in defendants’ favor on plaintiff’s
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) claim. (Docket No. 122). In that order, the court found

1

that “the administrative record strongly supports Defendants’ contention that the decision to

2

debar Plaintiff was premised on the FBI and NASA’s joint investigation, which was

3

independent of the standard background check associated with the badging process.” (Id. at 8).

4

Su now contends that, through discovery, he has amassed information showing that, contrary to

5

the court’s summary judgment ruling, NASA’s badging process and decisions as to him may be

6

intertwined with the FBI-NASA investigation that led to the decision to remove him from

7

NASA’s facilities. Plaintiff believes that Hower has information that will show how

8

intertwined those investigations were.
But, the fact remains that Judge Ware’s summary judgment ruling stands. And,

9

plaintiff’s only claims for relief are for alleged violations of his privacy arising out of the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

decision to remove him from NASA’s facilities. As such, this court finds that the testimony

12

sought is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

13

evidence and that the burden and expense of the discovery sought outweighs its likely benefit.

14

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b). Defendants’ motion for protective order therefore is granted. If plaintiff

15

obtains relief resulting in a live claim as to which Hower’s testimony is relevant, then this

16

court’s ruling is without prejudice to plaintiff to seek Hower’s deposition.

17
18

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 2, 2011

19
HOWARD R. LLOYD
20

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:09-cv-02838-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

James McManis

3

Joseph Steven Jarreau

4

Karen Seifert

5

Michael Gannon Reedy

[e-mail], [e-mail]

6

Richard Tyler Atkinson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

7

Vesper Mei

8

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3