Naser v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 63

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on (62) Discovery Letter Brief in case 5:10-cv-04475-EJD. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2012)

*E-filed: November 2, 2012*

1
2
3
4
5
6

NOT FOR CITATION

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

LOAY S. NASER,
Plaintiff,

11

No. C10-04475 EJD (HRL)
ORDER ON DDJR #1

v.
12

[Dkt. 62]

13

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL.,

14

Defendants.
____________________________________/

15
In this employment suit plaintiff Loay S. Naser (“Naser”) seeks relief against defendants
16
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, MetLife Enterprise General Insurance Agency, Inc., and
17
MetLife Securities (collectively “MetLife”) for alleged (1) wrongful/discriminatory termination; (2)
18
hostile work environment; (3) failure to pay owed wages; and (4) failure to reimburse reasonable
19
and necessary expenses. MetLife has already deposed Naser for the seven hours allowed under Rule
20
21

30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but it would like to depose Naser for an additional
seven hours. Naser opposes this request.

22
Rule 30(d)(1) limits a deposition to one day of seven hours but “[t]he court must allow
23
24

additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 30(d)(1). The Court has reviewed the competing contentions of the parties and finds that

25
additional time is needed for a fair examination of Naser. Naser is the plaintiff in this case and he
26
27

brings a range of employment claims that span approximately 18 years. He is also the sole fact
witness that Defendants seek to depose. For these reasons, the Court grants MetLife leave to

28

1

conduct further oral examination of Naser for one additional day of up to seven hours no later than

2

November 16, 2012. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: November 2, 2012
HOWARD R. LLOYD

5

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Because this DDJR was timely filed, MetLife may have the additional day of deposition even
though discovery has otherwise closed.
2

1

C10-04475 EJD (HRL) Order will be electronically mailed to:

2
Barbara Giuffre: [e-mail]
3
Caroline Donelan: [e-mail]
4
Elliot Schlesinger Katz: [e-mail], [e-mail]
5
Ethan G. Zelizer: [e-mail], [e-mail]
6
Richard B. Glickman: [e-mail]
7
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.

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3