Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WAYMO LLC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., C 17-00939 WHA. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170626768 Visitors: 22
Filed: Jun. 23, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2017
Summary: ORDER SETTING DEPOSITIONS WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . To keep this case on track for the agreed-upon trial date, an earlier order requested that counsel meet with the special master and agree upon a series of dates for all remaining depositions that need to be taken. Counsel failed to do so. As a result, to keep this case on track, the Court now resorts to setting a schedule and ORDERS that the following depositions go forward on the following dates, all commencing at 8:00 a.m. and l
More

ORDER SETTING DEPOSITIONS

To keep this case on track for the agreed-upon trial date, an earlier order requested that counsel meet with the special master and agree upon a series of dates for all remaining depositions that need to be taken. Counsel failed to do so. As a result, to keep this case on track, the Court now resorts to setting a schedule and ORDERS that the following depositions go forward on the following dates, all commencing at 8:00 a.m. and lasting up to seven hours:

NAME DEPOSITION DATE Pierre-Yves Droz Monday, July 10 Bryan Salesky (by defendants) Tuesday, July 11 William McCann Wednesday, July 12 Drew Ulrich Thursday, July 13 Larry Page Monday, July 17 Max Levandowski Tuesday, July 18 Eric Meyhofer Wednesday, July 19 Ognen Stojanovski Thursday, July 20 Bryan Salesky (by Waymo) Monday, July 24 Adam Bentley Tuesday, July 25 Zachary Morris Wednesday, July 26 Travis Kalanick Thursday, July 27 Emil Michael Monday, July 31 Brian McClendon Tuesday, August 1 John Krafcik Wednesday, August 2 Eric Tate Thursday, August 3 Sebastian Thrun Monday, August 7 Sam Lenius Tuesday, August 8 Chris Urmson Wednesday, August 9 Anthony Levandowski Thursday, August 10

The foregoing schedule may be modified upon written agreement in advance by all parties. This schedule is without prejudice to any motion, made promptly and in good faith before Judge Corley, for a protective order. Any unilateral motion to change a date on the schedule, however, must (1) show compelling reasons — not merely good cause — for the requested change and (2) offer an alternative date reasonably close to the assigned date.

Otherwise, unavailability of deponents is no excuse. They must make themselves available. If documents reasonably called for before a deposition are produced after the deposition, the party making the late production of documents shall pay for all expenses, including attorney's fees, associated with re-opening the deposition to allow further examination with respect to the subject matter of the belatedly-produced documents. This order is not a substitute for subpoenas, which must still be served on non-party deponents. This schedule is without prejudice to counsel noticing other depositions before the discovery cut-off, subject to the overall deposition limit. More than one deposition may be scheduled for the same day. In no event may depositions be taken after the discovery cut-off.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer