Soladigm, Inc v. Tarng

Filing 134

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 106 , 111 , and 126 Parties' Discovery Motions. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2012)

1
2

*E-FILED: October 16, 2012*

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NOT FOR CITATION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

12
13

No. C11-05416 EJD (HRL)

SOLADIGM, INC.,

ORDER RE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY
MOTIONS

Plaintiff,
v.

[Re: Dkt. Nos. 106, 111, 126]
14

MIN MING TARNG,

15

Defendant.
/

16
17

Pro se defendant Min Ming Tarng has filed a “Motion for Stopping Bad Faith

18

Deposition in Unreasonable Manner to Annoy, Embarrass and Oppress the Defendant.” (Dkt.

19

No. 106). Essentially, Tarng seeks a protective order preventing plaintiff Soladigm, Inc.

20

(Soladigm) from taking his deposition. For its part, Soladigm has filed a motion to compel

21

Tarng to appear for deposition and to produce certain documents. (Dkt. No. 111). Upon

22

consideration of the moving papers, as well as the discussion held at the October 16, 2012

23

hearing, this court rules as follows:

24

1.

Soladigm is entitled to depose Tarng, and Tarng shall appear for his deposition

25

on October 25, 2012, 9:30 a.m.. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, Tarng’s

26

deposition shall last no more than 7 hours (not including breaks). FED. R. CIV. P. 30(d). The

27

parties advise that they currently are meeting and conferring about having the deposition

28

proceed in San Jose or possibly some other location. Failing agreement, Tarng shall appear for

1

his deposition, as noticed, in San Francisco: Farella Braun + Martel, 235 Montgomery Street,

2

17th Floor.

3

2.

Soladigm is entitled to complete copies of all documents Tarng referenced or

4

quoted in his discovery responses. There is no indication that the documents are privileged or

5

otherwise subject to protection from discovery. Tarng shall produce complete copies of all such

6

documents by October 22, 2012.

7

3.

The parties are reminded of their obligation to meet-and-confer with one another

8

in good faith about all matters in this litigation generally—and especially before bringing

9

discovery disputes to the court’s attention. Indeed, the court will not entertain any discovery
matters, unless the parties have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

disputed issues. See Civ. L.R. 37-1(a); see also this court’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery

12

Disputes, Section 2.

13

4.

Any other pending discovery motions, including the one filed by defendant on

14

October 11, 2012 (Dkt. No. 126), will be terminated and the noticed hearings will be vacated.

15

The parties shall instead comply with the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery

16

Disputes.

17
18

SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2012

19
HOWARD R. LLOYD
20

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:11-cv-05416-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Christoffer Lee

3

Erik Christopher Olson

4

Jessica Koren Nall

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

5

Robert John Artuz

[e-mail], [e-mail]

6

Roderick Manley Thompson

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

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

7
8

5:11-cv-05416-EJD Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:

9

Min Ming Tarng, Ph.D
1367 Glenmoor Way
San Jose, CA 95129

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