King et al v. Sam Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 57

ORDER by Judge Edward J. Davila denying 54 Motion for Leave to File; Defendants' Request for Plaintiffs to File Original Discovery (ejdlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:CV 10-04706-EJD

EDDIE KING,

11

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE
ORIGINAL DISCOVERY

Plaintiff(s),
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
SAM HOLDINGS, LLC., ET AL.,

14

[Re: Docket Item No. 54]
Defendant(s).

15
16

/
Presently before the court is a request by Sam Holdings, LLC, Handson Ventures, LLC,

17

Rustin Canyon, LLC and HOV Global Services LTD (collectively, “Defendants”) that Eddie King,

18

Debbie King, Billy Ray Pitcher and John W. Maloney (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) file the original

19

deposition transcript of Parvinder Singh Chadha for use in connection with Defendants’ Motion to

20

Transfer. (See Docket Item No. 54, “Request”).

21

The Request cites no facts, argument, or legal authority for Defendants’ position that Mr.

22

Chadha’s original deposition transcript must be filed with the court. As a result, the court is left to

23

interpret the Request on its own, and finds it akin to a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24

32(a)(6). Rule 32 governs the general use of depositions in court proceedings and specifically

25

provides that: “If a party offers in evidence only part of a deposition, an adverse party may require

26

the offeror to introduce other parts that in fairness should be considered with the part introduced,

27

and any party may itself introduce any other parts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6).

28

Defendants apparently take issue with the deposition testimony of Mr. Chadha that was cited
1
CASE NO. 5:CV 10-04706-EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE ORIGINAL DISCOVERY

1

by Plaintiffs in their Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Transfer. See Docket Item Nos. 38 and

2

47. To counter Plaintiffs’ use of Mr. Chadha’s deposition transcript in this manner, Defendants now

3

request that Plaintiffs file the original transcript with the court. Rule 32(a)(6), however, does not

4

require entire, original deposition transcripts to be lodged with the court. If Defendants wanted the

5

court to consider Mr. Chadha’s entire deposition transcript, they should have attached it to their

6

Reply Brief.1 For these reasons, the court DENIES Defendants’ Request for Plaintiffs to File

7

Original Discovery.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: October 11, 2011
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

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

1

Instead of filing the entire transcript to counter the citations in Plaintiffs’ Opposition,
Defendants filed their own carefully selected excerpts of Mr. Chadha’s deposition, and submitted a
declaration by Mr. Chadha.
2
CASE NO. 5:CV 10-04706-EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE ORIGINAL DISCOVERY