Bickoff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 34

ORDER on Ex Parte Application for an Order to Quash the Deposition Subpoenas as to Remy Bickoff and Jaime Steward. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 4/1/2015.(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRUCE F. BICKOFF,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-CV-01065-BEN
(WVG)
ORDER ON EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION
SUBPOENAS AS TO REMY
BICKOFF AND JAIME
STEWARD
(Doc. No. 27)

17

I. BACKGROUND

18
19

On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Application for an Order to Quash the

20

Deposition Subpoenas as to Remy Bickoff and Jaime Steward (“Plaintiff’s Application”).

21

(Doc. No. 27.) On March 18, 2015, this Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Ex Parte

22

Application without prejudice to Defendant. (Doc. No. 28.) Due to the urgency of the

23

matter, the Court made its decision without hearing from Defendant. (Id. at 4.) On March

24

19, 2015, Defendant filed the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application. (Doc. No. 29.)

25

On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Reply in support of his Ex Parte Application. (Doc.

26

Nos. 30–31.) This Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Application on March 31, 2015, at

27

2:00 p.m. (“Hearing”). At its conclusion, this Court issued an oral ruling whose particulars

28

are memorialized in this order.
1

14CV1065

II. RULING

1
2

Having reviewed the Parties’ written and oral arguments, this Court DENIES

3

Plaintiff’s Application. The Court believes Defendant’s proposed deponents–Mr. Remy

4

Bickoff and Ms. Jaime Steward (“Deponents”)–may possess relevant and personal

5

knowledge of facts crucial to this litigation. Due to this reasonable possibility, however

6

minute it may seem to Plaintiff’s counsel, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)

7

subject both to examination by means of a variety of discovery tools, including the “most

8

potent and searching” one: depositions. Alexander Holtzoff, Instruments of Discovery Under

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 41 MICH. L. REV. 205, 206 (1942); FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a)

10

(“A party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of

11

court except as provided in Rule 30(a)(2).” (emphasis added)).1/ Admittedly, these

12

depositions were noticed at the eleventh hour. Nonetheless, but for Plaintiff’s Application,

13

both depositions would have been (barely) finished prior to the fact discovery deadline of

14

March 27, 2015. However, due to this deadline’s expiration, this Court expects the Parties

15

to adhere to a strict and tight schedule in the days ahead. Thus, within one week, the Parties

16

are to meet and confer regarding the scheduling of these depositions. These two persons’

17

depositions must be both conducted and concluded on or before April 7, 2015. In addition,

18

this Court reminds Defendant’s counsel that it expects him (and any colleagues and

19

successors) to confine his questioning to those few areas of inquiry expressly delimitated

20

during the Hearing’s course. Failure by either side or its counsel to adhere precisely to the

21

word and spirit of this order may lead to sanctions’ swift imposition. In contrast, if the

22

Parties legitimately dispute the applicability of the attorney-client and marital privileges

23

during these depositions, Parties’ counsel must jointly and immediately contact this Court.

24

Thereafter, if it deems it necessary, this Court may order further briefing on the extent and

25

the bearing of the three relevant privileges. Finally, although the fact discovery deadline has

26

since passed, in light of both the Parties’ amicable accord and the Defendant’s conceded

27
1/

28

As the Rules require, these depositions of non-party witnesses were noticed by subpoenas’ use.
See, e.g., FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a); Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 577 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2009).
2

14CV1065

1

blame, this Court will also allow Plaintiff to conduct the depositions of Mr. Gangelhoff and

2

Ms. Otten, Defendant’s witnesses, presently scheduled for April 2015 and to which the

3

Parties have previously agreed.
III. FURTHER ADMONITION

4
5

Even so, the Court hastens to issue a simple warning. Deadlines expressly established

6

by a court order are not to be lightly regarded, subject to modification at parties’ whims.

7

Instead, they represent definite signposts that no party, even with the other’s consent and the

8

best of intentions, may circumvent without first obtaining judicial permission. Otherwise,

9

the purpose that has long animated the Rules–“to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

10

determination of every action and proceeding,” FED. R. CIV. P. 1–would be endangered,

11

predictability critical for orderly adjudication possibly sacrificed, and needless chaos

12

potentially engendered. For these reasons, although this Court will permit Plaintiff to carry

13

out a final handful of depositions, it does so with the greatest reluctance. But, with this

14

warning now expressly promulgated, the Parties are on notice that no similar forbearance

15

will again be shown.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED: April 1, 2015

19
20

Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

14CV1065