Barajas v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

Filing 42

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 41 Discovery Letter Brief. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
CANDELARIA BARAJAS,

8

Plaintiff,

9
v.

10

ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.18-cv-00839-EJD (VKD)

Defendant.

12

ORDER RE NOVEMBER 6, 2018
JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE
LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 41

Defendant Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (“Abbott”) moves for an order compelling further

13
14

deposition testimony of plaintiff Candelaria Barajas and prospectively instructing Ms. Barajas and

15

her counsel regarding their conduct during deposition. Abbott also seeks monetary sanctions

16

against Ms. Barajas for her and her counsel’s prior conduct during deposition. Ms. Barajas

17

opposes Abbott’s motion for a further deposition, and objects that Abbott’s sanctions motion is

18

improper.
This matter is suitable for decision without a hearing. The Court denies Abbott’s motion

19
20

to compel a further deposition of Ms. Barajas and denies Abbott’s motion for sanctions without

21

prejudice.

22

I.

BACKGROUND
In this action, Ms. Barajas sues Abbott for gender discrimination, breach of implied

23
24

contract, and violation of the California Fair Pay Act.1 All of her claims arise under California

25

state law. Dkt. No. 1-3, Ex. A.
Abbott took Ms. Barajas’s deposition on October 3, 2018. According to Abbott, the

26
27
28

The parties stipulated to the dismissal of Ms. Barajas’s claim for defamation of profession. Dkt.
No. 40.
1

1

deposition could not be completed in seven hours for four reasons. First, Abbott complains that

2

Ms. Barajas gave “evasive and rambling non-responses” to Abbott’s questions, and that Abbott is

3

entitled to question her further. Second, Abbott says that Ms. Barajas’s counsel improperly

4

coached his witness by passing her a note during the deposition, making improper speaking

5

objections, and speaking with her during breaks about how to testify without revealing the

6

substance of the off-the-record coaching. Abbott says that counsel’s misconduct prevented Abbott

7

from completing a fair examination of Ms. Barajas in the seven hours allotted for her deposition.

8

Third, Abbott says this matter is so complex that more than seven hours are required for Ms.

9

Barajas’s deposition, even had no misconduct occurred. Fourth, Abbott contends that Ms. Barajas
should have produced certain documents before her deposition but did not, preventing Abbott

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

from asking her about them during the October 3, 2018 deposition. Abbott asks for three hours of

12

further deposition of Ms. Barajas.
Ms. Barajas opposes a further deposition on the ground that Abbott has not overcome the

13
14

presumption that seven hours is sufficient. She disputes Abbott’s contention that this case is

15

complex or that Abbott is prejudiced by any late production of documents. Ms. Barajas faults

16

Abbott for failing to support its claim that her testimony was “evasive and rambling,” and while

17

she does not deny that her counsel engaged in the conduct to which Abbott objects, she

18

characterizes this conduct as “trivial,” “de minimis,” and “misstated.”

19

II.

DISCUSSION
Abbott’s Motion for Further Deposition and Instructions

20

A.

21

In support of its motion to compel a further deposition of Ms. Barajas, Abbott principally

22

relies on Rule 30(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that the Court “must

23

allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the

24

deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the

25

examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). A party seeking a court order to extend the examination

26

must show “good cause” to justify such an order. Pratt v. Archstone Willow Glen Apartments, No.

27

C 08-3588 JF (RS), 2009 WL 2032469, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2009) (discussing examples of

28

relevant considerations). The Court considers each of the arguments Abbott raises.
2

1
2

1.

Evasive testimony

Abbott argues that Ms. Barajas’s testimony was evasive, rambling, and non-responsive.
Abbott identifies only one example of such testimony: Ms. Barajas’s reply to the question, “Do

3
you remember telling ER that you did do that, not as much with Penelope and Christine, because
4
5

of the way they behaved to you when you approached them?” See Dkt. No. 41-1 at 227:2–232:2.
The Court does not find Ms. Barajas’s testimony evasive, rambling, or non-responsive. Rather,

6
this deposition excerpt illustrates how a poorly worded question begets a response that includes
7
information the questioner did not intend to ask about. The Court has reviewed all of the
8
deposition excerpts attached as Exhibit A to the joint discovery dispute letter and discerns no other
9
examples of testimony that might be deemed evasive, rambling, or non-responsive.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

2.

Coaching

Abbott also argues that Ms. Barajas’s counsel improperly coached her to answer in a

13

manner that interfered with Abbott’s examination. First, Abbott says that counsel passed Ms.

14

Barajas a note while she was testifying. Abbott acknowledges that Ms. Barajas’s counsel turned

15

over the note at the end of the deposition and cites it as an example of impermissible coaching, but

16

neither Abbott nor Ms. Barajas reveals what the note said. From this record, the Court cannot

17

determine whether counsel’s note constituted improper coaching about the substance of Ms.

18

Barajas’s testimony or a proper privileged communication or something else entirely.

19

Second, Abbott complains that Ms. Barajas’s counsel made improper speaking objections

20

designed to influence her testimony. The deposition excerpts attached as Exhibit A to the joint

21

discovery dispute letter reflect several occasions where Ms. Barajas’s counsel commented on

22

questions or interjected other remarks that went beyond simply stating the bases for his objections.

23

These are the statements to which Abbott specifically objects:

24

•

15:7 (“The complaint is on file.”); 15:10 (“If you understand the question—”);
15:12 (“—or unless you’re speculating.”); 15:18-19 (“Okay. We want what
the complaint is pleading.”)

•

29:11 (“That’s all that we reviewed.”); 29:13 (“I think that you’re correct.”)

•

129:15 (“Yes or no.”)

25
26
27
28

3

•

152:3 (“You can answer the question, if you understand it.”)

2

•

208:12 (“Those exact words.”)

3

•

227:9 (“Who is ‘they’?”)

4

•

284:15 (“There’s nothing about a personnel file.”); 285:4-5 (“The scarlet letter
doesn’t refer to a personnel file.”)

•

315:6-7 (“I think she’s already answered this, and it’s the same answer.”);
315:10-12 (“It doesn’t make a difference. It’s confidential information. She
already said it’s not appropriate.”)

1

5
6
7
8

Dkt. No. 41-1. The following exchange is representative of how counsel’s objections impacted

9

examination of the witness:
Q.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

[Plaintiff’s Counsel.] Objection. Vague and ambiguous. The complaint is on file.

12
13

Q.

What do you want out of this lawsuit?

You can answer.

[Plaintiff’s Counsel.] If you understand the question—

14
A.

I don’t understand the question.

15
16
17
18
19
20

[Plaintiff’s Counsel.] —or unless you’re speculating.
Q.

What do you want out of this lawsuit?

[Plaintiff’s Counsel.] Objection. Vague and ambiguous. Could you be a little bit
more specific?
Q.

No.

[Plaintiff’s Counsel.] Okay. We want what the complaint is pleading.

21
Q.

You’re not here to testify, Mr. Baker. Your client is here to testify.

A.

Well, it is actually on my complaint, so—

Q.

So I’m here today to get your testimony and your best recollection.

A.

Uh-huh.

26

Q.

So just referring me to a document is not giving me your best testimony.

27

[Plaintiff’s Counsel.] Ask a specific question.

28

Q.

22
23
24
25

Please don’t interrupt me, Mr. Baker.
4

Q.

So as you sit here today, can you tell me anything that you want out of your
lawsuit?

A.

If you could be specific I could.

Q.

Do you want money?

A.

Compensation, yes.

Q.

For what?

A.

Damages, wages lost.

Q.

How much money do you want?

9

A.

I wouldn’t be able to tell you that.

10

Q.

As you sit here today, you can’t tell me how much money you want from
your lawsuit?

A.

It— it—I would estimate that to be whatever wages I’ve lost within the last,
you know, almost two years, plus damages.

13

Q.

What other damages?

14

A.

For pain and anguish and stress and anxiety and everything else.

Q.

Other than money, do you want anything else out of this lawsuit?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

15
16

[Plaintiff’s Counsel.] She just said stress and anxiety.

17
18

Dkt. No. 41-1 at 15:6–17:3. Here, Abbott’s counsel asks an ambiguous question (or at least one

19

that a lay witness might have difficulty answering) that seeks not facts, but a statement of the relief

20

Ms. Barajas seeks in the case, and her counsel jumps in to clarify what his client “wants” from the

21

lawsuit, instead of objecting to the propriety of the question.

22

The Court has reviewed the other examples of improper speaking objections to which

23

Abbott objects. Ms. Barajas’s counsel’s comments and remarks were argumentative and

24

suggestive, and therefore improper. However, the Court is not persuaded that counsel’s behavior

25

unduly prolonged the deposition, or that it caused Ms. Barajas to shade her testimony or avoid

26

answering proper questions. Abbott has not shown that counsel’s speaking objections prevented it

27

from obtaining fair answers to any specific, unobjectionable questions or line of questioning, or

28

that it suffered prejudice that could be further remedied by a further deposition.
5

During the deposition, Ms. Barajas’s counsel also made a number of extended objections

1
2

and engaged in colloquy with Abbott’s counsel. These discussions between counsel do not

3

constitute improper coaching. For example, Ms. Barajas’s counsel objected to disclosure of his

4

client’s current employment when Abbot refused to treat the information as confidential under the

5

protective order, and the parties discussed that matter at length on the record. See Dkt. No. 41-1 at

6

19:6–25:11. While counsel’s discussion of the protective order dispute need not have taken place

7

entirely on the record, Ms. Barajas’s counsel did not act improperly by objecting and stating his

8

intent to seek a protective order before disclosing information Ms. Barajas believes warrants

9

protection.2 See, e.g., In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 227 F.R.D. 227, 230 (S.D.N.Y.
2005) (“[I]f the plaintiff's attorney believed that the examination was being conducted in bad faith

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

. . . or that the deponents were being needlessly annoyed, embarrassed, or oppressed, he should

12

have halted the examination and applied immediately to the ex parte judge for a ruling on the

13

questions, or for a protective order, pursuant to Rule 30(d).”) (citation omitted).
Third, Abbott argues that Ms. Barajas and her counsel took frequent breaks and that

14
15

improper coaching took place during these breaks. Abbott cites two examples of such coaching

16

breaks. In the first example, Abbott’s counsel asked Ms. Barajas to confirm that she cannot

17

remember the names of the male managers who were similarly situated. Ms. Barajas replied that

18

she does not know. Ms. Barajas’s counsel then requested a break to talk to his client. When Ms.

19

Barajas returned, Abbott’s counsel asked whether she had anything to add to her last answer, and

20

Ms. Barajas replied that she did. Abbott’s counsel asked what she and her attorney talked about

21

during the break, and Ms. Barajas’s counsel instructed her not to answer. Eventually, Abbott’s

22

counsel asked her what she wanted to add, and she provided the testimony. See Dkt. No. 41-1 at

23

44:23–45:3.
In the second example, Abbott’s counsel asked Ms. Barajas when she learned about certain

24
25

complaints that had been made against her. She responded. Her counsel apparently thought her

26

answer was incorrect and took a break to confer with his client. When she returned, Ms. Barajas

27
28

2

The Court does not comment on the merits of this protective order dispute.
6

1

gave what appears to be the same answer again. In addition, she and her attorney confirmed that

2

her recollection was refreshed during the break. See id. at 77:4–78:12.

3

It is improper for a witness and her attorney to discuss the substance of her testimony
during breaks in a deposition, except where necessary to address matters of privilege. In re

5

Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No 14-cv-2058-SC, 2015 WL 12942210, at *3 (N.D.

6

Cal. May 29, 2015) (“Courts have ruled that once a deposition begins, counsel should not confer

7

with the witness except to determine whether a privilege should be asserted.”); In re Stratosphere

8

Corp., 182 F.R.D. 614, 621 (D. Nev. 1998). If Ms. Barajas’s counsel felt his client’s recollection

9

needed refreshing or her testimony required clarification, he should have questioned her himself

10

on the record at the conclusion of the deposition. See, e.g., Beverley R. O’Connell & Karen L.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

Stevenson, Rutter Group Prac. Guide: Federal Civ. Proc. Before Trial (Nat’l Ed.) Ch. 11(IV)-A at

12

11:1544, 11:1549-11:1550 (2018). Counsel’s coaching breaks were absolutely improper here.

13

The question for the Court is whether a further deposition is warranted so that Abbott’s counsel

14

may learn what was said during the breaks and how those communications may have influenced

15

the witness’s testimony. The Court considers the two coaching breaks to which Abbott objects.

16

A further deposition appears unnecessary with respect to the second coaching break

17

example, as Ms. Barajas did not change her answer after communicating with counsel, and she

18

admitted on the record that she conferred with her attorney about her testimony during a break.

19

The first coaching break example is more problematic, as Ms. Barajas’s testimony appears to have

20

been influenced by her conference with counsel during the break, and counsel instructed her not to

21

answer questions about what was said during the conference. Ms. Barajas does not suggest that

22

the purpose of the conference was to discuss matters of privilege, nor does she defend the conduct

23

on any other ground. On the other hand, immediately before the disputed exchange in the first

24

example, Abbott’s counsel expressly invites Ms. Barajas’s counsel to talk to his client on a break:

25

“Counsel, it’s really not appropriate for you testifying or telling your client how to testify in this

26

deposition. If you need to talk to your client, you can take a break and do that.” Dkt. No. 41-1 at

27

44:5-9 (emphasis added). While improper deposition conduct is not excused simply because one’s

28

adversary has invited that conduct, the Court is reluctant to allow Abbott further deposition time to
7

1

remedy conduct it appeared to condone at the time it occurred. More importantly, Abbott does not

2

clearly identify the subject matter implicated by the improper break. The question and answer that

3

precede the break are:

4

Q.

And earlier, you told me you couldn’t remember any of the names of the male
managers, correct?

A.

I don’t know.

5
6

Id. at 44:23-25. But the clarifying testimony Ms. Barajas attempts to offer after the break appears

8

to refer to something else, possibly a portion of her complaint. Id. at 47:9-25 (“A. So on line 14

9

for page, 3, so [. . .].”). Because Abbott has not identified any specific questions or line of

10

questioning that it believes it could not fairly pursue because of improper communications

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

occurring on a break Abbott’s counsel invited Ms. Barajas’s counsel to take, the Court finds that

12

Abbott has not established good cause for a further deposition based on improper coaching during

13

a break. See Pratt, 2009 WL 2032469, at *1.

14
15

3.

Complexity of the matter

Abbott contends that this matter is so complex that, independent of any misconduct during

16

the deposition, it requires three more hours for the examination of Ms. Barajas. Abbott points to

17

the fact that Ms. Barajas asserts two distinct theories of liability—wrongful termination and

18

discrimination in compensation—as justification for the additional time.

19

The fact that Ms. Barajas’s claims involve two theories of liability, standing alone, does

20

not compel a finding that the case is so complex that the presumptive time limit on individual

21

depositions should not apply to Ms. Barajas’ deposition. Compare Dkt. No. 18 at 4–5

22

(“Defendant believes that a ten-hour deposition of Plaintiff would be appropriate given the

23

multiple causes of actions and theories of liability asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint.”) with Dkt.

24

No. 20 (ordering the parties to comply with the presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the

25

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). More importantly, Abbott does not identify any subject matter

26

that it did not have the opportunity to cover. It is not enough for Abbott to simply assert that it

27

requires more time. Steshenko v. McKay, 09-CV-05543-RS (PSG), 2012 WL 13054713, at *2

28

(N.D. Cal. June 22, 2012) (denying request for additional time to depose plaintiff because “[a]side
8

1

from merely speculating that more time beyond seven hours is needed to examine Steshenko, no

2

specific grounds to justify a longer deposition have been provided”); Somerset Studios, LLC v.

3

School Specialty, Inc., No. C 10–5527 MEJ, 2011 WL 4344596, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2011)

4

(rejecting request to double deposition time based in part on “the complexity of the issues and the

5

sheer number of documents that need to be reviewed”).

6
7

4.

Delayed document production

Abbott says that it should be permitted more deposition time because Ms. Barajas did not

8

timely produce documents in advance of her deposition. This argument is not well-developed.

9

Abbott refers to one category of documents—“applications Plaintiff submitted to employers after
her employment with Defendant”—and cites to a portion of the deposition transcript that is not

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

before the Court. See Dkt. No. 41 at 7 (citing 326:19-327:6).

12

Abbott does not explain what testimony it sought to obtain with respect to these

13

applications, or how such testimony is relevant to a claim or defense in this case. Abbott also does

14

not explain why it proceeded with Ms. Barajas’s deposition without first moving to compel

15

production of responsive documents it believed were necessary for a fair examination of Ms.

16

Barajas. A request for further deposition time requires a showing that Abbott’s examination of

17

Ms. Barajas was frustrated because it was required to proceed with her deposition without the

18

applications in hand. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. C 11-1846 LHK

19

(PSG), 2012 WL 1511901, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012) (granting request for additional

20

deposition time with witness based on defendant’s receipt of extensive design-related discovery

21

after witness’s deposition already took place and based on the fact that witness had unique first-

22

hand knowledge that other witnesses did not). Abbott has not made this showing.
Abbott’s Motion for Sanctions

23

B.

24

The discovery dispute resolution procedure set forth in the Court’s Standing Order for

25

Civil Cases may not be used for motions for sanctions. See Standing Order for Civil Cases at 4

26

(“Motions for sanctions. Any party seeking an award of attorney fees or other form of sanction

27

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 may not use the expedited joint discovery letter procedure described

28

above, but instead must file a motion conforming to the requirements of Civil L.R. 37-4.”).
9

1

Abbott’s request for monetary sanctions does not comply with the requirements of the local rules.

2

For this reason, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.

3

III.

4

CONCLUSION
Ms. Barajas’s counsel engaged in some deposition conduct that was improper. However,

5

Abbott has not shown that it was prevented by such improper conduct from obtaining testimony to

6

which it otherwise would have been entitled. Nor has Abbott shown that the case is so complex

7

that three additional hours of deposition time is necessary for a fair examination of Ms. Barajas, or

8

that a delay in document production requires additional deposition time.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Accordingly, the Court denies Abbott’s motion to compel a further deposition of Ms.
Barajas. The Court also denies Abbott’s motion for sanctions without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 29, 2018

13
14
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10