JOHN W. SEDWICK, Senior District Judge.
At docket 66 plaintiffs William Tate, et al. ("Plaintiffs") move for an order compelling answers to certain deposition questions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 37(a). Plaintiffs' motion is supported by a memorandum at docket 67 and an affidavit of counsel at docket 75. Defendant United States of America ("United States") opposes Plaintiffs' motion at docket 82. Plaintiffs reply at docket 85. Oral argument was not requested but would not assist the court.
The factual background of this case is set out in the court's order at docket 65 and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say for present purposes that the United States' expert, Robert Shavelle, Pd.D. ("Shavelle"), refused to answer numerous questions at his deposition. Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling him to answer these questions.
If a deponent refuses to answer questions at her deposition, the interrogating party may move under Rule 37(a) for an order compelling discovery. The deponent has the burden to clarify, explain, and support her objections, and the ultimate burden of showing that she should not be compelled to answer the disputed questions.
Shavelle refused to provide the income that he or his company, Strauss & Shavelle, Inc., earns annually from litigation work, stating that he already produced sufficient information about the income he and his company has earned in this case and that providing the company's actual income was prohibited by a confidentiality agreement and by company policy.
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Shavelle to provide his and his company's annual income from litigation work, arguing that this discovery is appropriate because it can show "positional bias."
The court finds the latter line of authority more persuasive in the context of the case at hand. If Plaintiffs wish to portray Shavelle as a biased professional witness because he derives a significant amount of his income from litigation fees, they have sufficient information with which do so. Shavelle testified that nearly all of his company's income comes from litigation, and he earns all of his income from his company. Knowing the overall amount of Shavelle's litigation income would not significantly assist the jury's evaluation of Shavelle's bias. The slight probative value of this evidence is outweighed by the potential for confusing or distracting the jury and burdening Shavelle.
Citing privacy concerns, Shavelle refused to provide his date of birth,
With regard to the remaining information, Plaintiffs argue that if they can show that Shavelle works out of his home and not in his company's San Francisco office, this will somehow discredit Shavelle. The court agrees with the United States that the facts Plaintiffs seek are irrelevant to the validity of Shavelle's opinions in this case. Plaintiffs' request will be denied.
At docket 52 Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the United States to produce the raw data upon which Shavelle based his research articles. The court denied the motion because Plaintiffs had not shown that Shavelle considered that data in forming his opinions in this case.
The arguments that Plaintiffs advance in support of their current motion are essentially the same arguments the court rejected at docket 65. The court rejects them again.
Shavelle refused to provide the names of four research and consulting assistants who work for his company, but did not work on this case, stating that he was "not sure it would be appropriate . . . to put their full names on what is a public record."
The United States objects, stating that this "theoretical future discovery `rings hollow'" because Plaintiffs made no attempt before the close of discovery to contact the two assistants who actually worked on this case.
The names of Shavelle's four assistants are irrelevant to this case. All of the questions that Plaintiffs want to ask these individuals seek irrelevant information. Further, the court agrees with the United States that Plaintiffs could have asked the questions to the assistants whom Shavelle did identify, but they chose not to. This shows that not even Plaintiffs themselves believe that the sought-after information is relevant or important to resolving the issues in this case. Plaintiffs' request will be denied.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' motion at docket 66 is