Filed: May 31, 2018
Latest Update: May 31, 2018
Summary: ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELECONFERENCE RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . Due to a dispute over setting the depositions of the defendants, the Court held an informal, teleconference to attempt to resolve the matter on May 30, 2018. Before this occurred, the defendants filed an emergency motion related to the depositions and sought a stay to prevent the depositions from going forward until the Court could rule on the motion. (Doc. 23) As it turns out, the depositio
Summary: ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELECONFERENCE RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . Due to a dispute over setting the depositions of the defendants, the Court held an informal, teleconference to attempt to resolve the matter on May 30, 2018. Before this occurred, the defendants filed an emergency motion related to the depositions and sought a stay to prevent the depositions from going forward until the Court could rule on the motion. (Doc. 23) As it turns out, the deposition..
More
ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELECONFERENCE RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
Due to a dispute over setting the depositions of the defendants, the Court held an informal, teleconference to attempt to resolve the matter on May 30, 2018. Before this occurred, the defendants filed an emergency motion related to the depositions and sought a stay to prevent the depositions from going forward until the Court could rule on the motion. (Doc. 23)
As it turns out, the deposition of the individual defendant, Dr. Meissner-Frisk cannot go forward because she is on medical leave and is not expected to return to work until mid-July. Thus, counsel agreed that this deposition will be postponed until her return to work.
As to the entity, the deposition notice failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) which requires the areas for examination to be described with "reasonable particularity." Thus, the Court was unable to assist in scheduling the deposition of the entity until the attorney for the CDCR could investigate whom the entity would designate to testify. Plaintiff's counsel agreed he would email a list of topics to opposing counsel by the end of the day. Thus, the Court ORDERS:
1. The depositions of Dr. Meissner-Frisk SHALL be completed by August 17, 2018. Counsel for Dr. Meissner-Frisk SHALL notify Dr. Meissner-Frisk of the deposition and coordinate with her and counsel for the plaintiff to select a mutually convenient date;
2. No later than June 6, 2018, Counsel SHALL make best efforts to select a convenient date for the deposition of the CDCR. The Court anticipates the deposition will occur no later than June 15, 2018. Within four business hours after the date is selected by counsel jointly, counsel for the plaintiff SHALL serve a notice of the deposition via email to counsel for the CDCR. The CDCR may serve objections to the notice via email at least 24 hours before the deposition begins.1
3. The Court finds the emergency motion (Doc. 23) to be moot/unripe and, on that basis, it is DENIED without prejudice. Other than its comments that the deposition notice failed to provide proper notice of the categories for testimony, the Court makes no other findings as to the other objections set forth in the emergency motion. However, the Court encourages the plaintiff's attorney to review the motion and the applicable legal authorities and to make whatever corrections to the deposition notice he feels are necessary to make it comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
