Schmidt v. Coldwell Banker Residential et al

Filing 91

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 85 Motion for Protective Order; denying as moot 89 Motion to Shorten Time. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2013)

1
2

*E-FILED: August 19, 2013*

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NOT FOR CITATION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. C13-00986 EJD (HRL)

RODERIC MALCOLM SCHMIDT,

12

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER;
AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
ORDER SHORTENING TIME

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL
BROKERAGE, JOHN DOE, JANE ROE,

15

Defendants.

[Re: Docket Nos. 85, 89]
/

16
17

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a protective order preventing his deposition, which is

18

scheduled to take place in Monterey on August 22, 2013. Intervenor Martin Schmidt filed

19

papers in opposition to plaintiff’s motion. Defendant Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage

20

joins in intervenor’s opposition. The parties are advised that this court does not entertain

21

noticed discovery motions. And, ordinarily, this court would have terminated plaintiff’s motion

22

and directed the parties to comply with its Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes. Having

23

reviewed the moving and responding papers, however, this court finds that this matter can be

24

resolved without further briefing or oral argument. CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated

25

below, plaintiff’s motion for protective order is denied and his motion for an order shortening

26

time for a motion hearing is denied as moot.

27
28

Plaintiff has not convincingly demonstrated the need for a protective order preventing

August 19; and, indeed, intervenor says that the deposition, originally set for August 8, was re-

3

scheduled for August 22, 2013 solely to accommodate plaintiff. Plaintiffs routinely are subject

4

to examination by opposing parties, and the opposing parties here are entitled to a live

5

deposition of plaintiff by oral examination. Additionally, at this time and on the record

6

presented, the court declines to limit the examination in the ways suggested by plaintiff. It goes

7

without saying that plaintiff may be asked about any non-privileged matters that are relevant to

8

any party’s claim or defense, or that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

9

admissible evidence. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, however, the

10

scope of permissible and relevant discovery includes questions about matters or evidence that

11
For the Northern District of California

his deposition, except by written questions. Plaintiff is scheduled to be here during the week of

2

United States District Court

1

might tend to disprove or contradict his allegations.

12

To the extent the testimony involves the disclosure of any sensitive or confidential

13

information, such information may be used only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to

14

settle this litigation. If the parties decide that other or further protection is appropriate, they

15

should meet-and-confer to attempt to agree on additional terms. To the extent plaintiff believes

16

that certain information elicited at his deposition should not be made part of the court’s public

17

records, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, he may request a sealing order. However, plaintiff

18

is advised that sealing orders may issue only upon a request that establishes that the subject

19

information is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection

20

under the law. Plaintiff is admonished not to abuse that process.

21

As for plaintiff’s request to bar Martin Schmidt from attending the deposition, the court

22

may, for good cause shown, designate the persons who may be present while the deposition is

23

conducted. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1)(E). Such exclusion orders are, however, “ordered rarely

24

indeed.” Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986, 997 (2d Cir. 1973). It is unclear whether Martin

25

Schmidt even plans to attend the deposition. But, all plaintiff says is that intervenor is upset

26

with him. Without more, this court declines to bar him from attending the examination.

27

However, the court’s ruling on this issue is made without prejudice, should it be established that

28
2

1

Martin Schmidt is harassing plaintiff or that his presence at the deposition is disrupting the

2

examination.

3

Finally, the parties are advised that this court will not entertain any future discovery

4

matters that are not brought in compliance with the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil

5

Discovery Disputes.

6

SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: August 19, 2013

8
HOWARD R. LLOYD
9

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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
3

1

5:13-cv-00986-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Elizabeth Catherine Gianola

[e-mail], [e-mail]

3

Michael William Davidson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

4
5

5:13-cv-00986-EJD Notice sent by U.S. Mail to:

6

Roderic Malcolm Schmidt
465 NE 181st #464
Portland, OR 97230

7
8
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
4