Kanellakopoulos v. Unimerica Life Insurance Company

Filing 50

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 49 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IOANNIS KANELLAKOPOULOS,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1

v.

14
15

Case No.5:15-cv-04674-BLF (HRL)

UNIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

16

Re: Dkt. No. 49

Defendant.

17
In this case, plaintiff sues defendant for alleged wrongful denial of disability benefits. The

18
19

present discovery dispute is over the depositions of two of plaintiff’s treating medical

20

professionals: Dr. Howard Fenn (“Fenn”) and Nurse Practitioner Heidi Clark (“Clark”).
Plaintiff’s counsel e-mailed defense counsel that she was preparing deposition subpoenas

21
22

for these two and sought input on dates for his availability. She had already contacted attorneys

23

for the prospective deponents about their availability. Defense counsel did not respond to the e-

24

mail.

25
26

One week later plaintiff’s counsel reached defense counsel by telephone, once again asked
about his availability for the two depositions, and was told he would get back to her.

27

Shortly thereafter, the two lawyers spoke again by telephone about scheduling other

28

depositions, and, according the plaintiff’s counsel, defense counsel again begged off discussing his

1
2
3
4

availability for the depositions of Fenn and Clark.
Days later, having never responded to plaintiff’s counsel’s entreaties, defense counsel
caused deposition subpoenas to be served on Fenn and Clark.
Plaintiff’s counsel took exception to what defense counsel had done. Defense counsel,

5

apparently without apology and with no pretense of misunderstanding the intentions of plaintiff’s

6

counsel, said---since he had been first to notice the depositions---he would be the first to question

7

the two deponents.

8

Plaintiff’s counsel, by contacting defense counsel about dates for her depositions of the

9

two medical professionals, had been acting with civility and professional courtesy, a text-book
example of compliance with the Court’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct (“Guidelines”). By

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ignoring her efforts and knowingly and intentionally engaging in a sharp practice in order to

12

secure what he perceived to be the advantage of being first to question important witnesses is a

13

text-book example of the kind of conduct that the Guidelines aim to discourage. Even though

14

defense counsel is “technically” correct that Civil L. R. 30-1 does not require counsel to confer

15

about dates for depositions of non-parties before a subpoena issues, the court cannot countenance

16

defense counsel’s conduct and finds that his unprofessionalism trumps the customary prerogative

17

that the first one to notice the deposition would be the first to question the witness. That is, Civil

18

L.R. 30-1 does not absolve his conduct. Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel shall go first in

19

questioning deponents Fenn and Clark.

20

SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: April 12, 2017

22
23
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:15-cv-04674-BLF Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Daniel Keenan Ryan

[e-mail], [e-mail]

3

Joseph Andrew Creitz [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

4
5
6

Lisa Sharon Serebin

[e-mail]

Peter John Felsenfeld [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3