Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01943/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01943-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441bc Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SANCHEZ Y MARTIN, S.A. DE C.V., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

DOS AMIGOS, INC.; and 

PABLO PAOLI, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF 

AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT 

SANCHEZ Y MARTIN, S.A. DE 

C.V.'S MOTION TO COMPEL: 

(1) WITNESS ON 30(b)(6) TOPICS; 

(2) PRODUCTION OF 

DOCUMENTS; AND 

(3) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL 

TIME AT DEPOSITION 

[ECF No. 74] 

DOS AMIGOS, INC., 

Counter Claimant,

v. 

SANCHEZ Y MARTIN, S.A. DE C.V.; 

and ROES 1 through 20, 

Counter Defendant.

 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff and Counter-defendant Sanchez Y Martin, 

S.A. de C.V.’s Motion to Compel (1) Witness on 30(b)(6) topics; (2) Production of 

Documents; and (3) Request for Additional Time at Deposition. [ECF No. 74-1 (“Mot.”)], 

and Defendants and Counter-claimants Dos Amigos, Inc. and Pablo Paoli’s Opposition. 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 12
2 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[ECF No. 76 (“Oppo.”]. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED 

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 On August 2, 2017, Plaintiff Sanchez Y Martin, S.A. de C.V. (“SYM”) filed a 

complaint against Defendants in California state court alleging (1) failure to pay for balance 

on open book account; (2) breach of promissory note; and (3) breach of personal guaranty. 

ECF No. 1-2. On September 25, 2017, Defendant Pablo Paoli (“Paoli”) removed the case 

to federal court and Defendant Dos Amigos, Inc. (“Dos Amigos”) filed a counterclaim 

against SYM alleging breaches of non-disclosure agreement and fraud and deceit. ECF 

Nos. 1, 4. The counterclaim seeks, inter alia, compensatory damages no less than one 

million dollars; damages arising from the loss of prospective sales to its clients; 

consequential and/or incidental damages; proximately caused damages including lost 

profits, expenses, loss of goodwill, loss of reputation, and loss of customers; and punitive 

damages. ECF No. 4 at 9-10. On June 8, 2018, SYM filed a First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”) alleging (1) failure to pay for balance on open book account against Defendant 

Dos Amigos; (2) breach of promissory note against Defendant Dos Amigos; and (3) breach 

of personal guaranty against Defendant Paoli. ECF No. 44 (“FAC”). In the FAC, Plaintiff 

alleges that “Defendants Dos Amigos and Paoli were the agents, joint venturers and/or alter 

egos of each other”; that “Paoli dominated and controlled Dos Amigos”; and that “Paoli 

comingled funds and other assets, failed to segregate funds of the allegedly separate entity, 

and transferred assets between himself and the entity, all with no substantial business 

justification and in derogation of the rights of contractual partners.” Id., ¶ 5. 

RELEVANT DISCOVERY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

On January 16, 2018, the Court issued a Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery 

and Other Pretrial Proceedings. ECF No. 17. On June 4, 2018, the Court issued an order 

granting the parties’ joint motion to amend the scheduling order to extend deadlines. ECF 

No. 42. On August 27, 2018, the Court issued an order granting the parties’ second joint 

motion to extend discovery and pretrial deadlines. ECF No. 51. 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 12
3 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On December 21, 2018, SYM served its Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice to Dos 

Amigos, which included Topic Nos. 1 through 31 and Requests for Production (“RFP”) 

Nos. 1 through 7. ECF No. 74-2, Declaration of Jacob Kozaczuk (“Kozaczuk Decl.”) at 5-

16. 

On January 24, 2019, counsel for SYM and counsel for Defendants jointly contacted 

the Court after meet and confer efforts failed regarding a discovery dispute concerning the 

deposition of Defendant Dos Amigos, Inc.’s 30(b)(6) witness.1

 ECF No. 70. After a followup conference call on January 31, 2019, the Court issued a briefing schedule. Id. The parties 

timely filed the motion and response in accordance with the schedule. See Mot., Oppo. 

Subsequently, Defendants filed a document titled “Objections To SYM’s Efiling of 

Unredacted Deposition Transcripts in ECF No. 74-2.” ECF No. 77. In it, Defendants 

objected to the efiling of unredacted excerpts of a rough deposition transcript as part of 

ECF No. 74-2 for failing to follow the stipulated protective order [ECF No. 36] regarding 

the designation of confidentiality on deposition transcripts. Id. The Court will therefore 

consider the filings with the exclusion of the deposition excerpts in ECF No. 74-2. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is defined as 

follows: 

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the 

case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 

amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the 

parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and 

whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

                                               

1

 In the conference call with chambers, the parties indicated that the dispute arose on January 23, 2019, 

during the deposition of Dos Amigos’ 30(b)(6) witness. 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 12
4 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. 

See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). District courts also have broad 

discretion to limit discovery to prevent its abuse. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) (instructing 

that courts must limit discovery where the party seeking the discovery “has had ample 

opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action” or where the proposed 

discovery is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” “obtain[able] from some other 

source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive,” or where it “is outside 

the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)”). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, “a party may move for an order 

compelling disclosure of discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The party seeking to compel 

discovery has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevance requirement 

of Rule 26. Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Thereafter, the 

party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that the discovery should be 

prohibited, and the burden of “clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections.” 

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Blankenship v. 

Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)). 

Rule 30(b)(6) provides that “[i]n its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the 

deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental 

agency, or other entity and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for 

examination. The named organization must then designate one or more officers, directors, 

or managing agents, or designate other persons who consent to testify on its behalf; and it 

may set out the matters on which each person designated will testify.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(b)(6). 

“[A] federal court sitting under diversity jurisdiction in California will apply 

California law as to the right of privacy.” Madrigal v. Allstate Indem. Co., No. CV 14-

4242 SS, 2015 WL 12746225, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2015). “To resolve privacy 

objections to a discovery request, courts must balance ‘the need for the information sought 

against the privacy right asserted.’” Applied Med. Distribution Corp. v. Ah Sung Int'l Inc., 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 12
5 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. SACV141900JVSRNBX, 2015 WL 12910698, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2015) 

(quoting Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616). “When conducting this balancing test, courts may cure 

any outstanding privacy concerns by granting discovery subject to an appropriate 

protective order.” Id. 

DISCUSSION 

 SYM seeks an order from the Court ordering Dos Amigos to (1) appear for a full 

day of deposition within five days; (2) testify as to Topic Nos. 18, 24, and 31; and (3) 

produce all documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1 through 7 before or at the time appointed 

for the continuance of the deposition. Mot. at 14. 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that SYM also stated that “[i]n the event SYM’s 

other Motion to Compel is granted, the document requests that are the subject of this motion 

will be moot. It is not SYM’s intention to compel Mr. Paoli and Dos Amigos to produce 

the same documents.” Id. at 13, n.3. On February 13, 2019, the Court granted in part SYM’s 

motion to compel production of documents. ECF No. 78. Accordingly, the Court finds that 

SYM’s motion to compel production of documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1 through 7 is 

deemed moot. 

A. Topic Nos. 18, 24, and 31 

 In SYM’s notice to Dos Amigos for its 30(b)(6) deposition, SYM included the 

following topics: 

(a) “Topic No. 18: DOS AMIGOS’ alleged efforts to bring DOS AMIGOS’ debt to 

SYM current, including but not limited to, potential investment by Alia Capital Partners, 

the sale of the Chaparritas brand, and a potential loan from Pacific Commerce Bank.” 

[Kozaczuk Decl. at 11] 

(b) “Topic No. 24: DOS AMIGOS’ financial condition from 2005 to the present.” 

[Kozaczuk Decl. at 12] 

(c) “Topic No. 31: DOS AMIGOS’ relationship and business dealings with other 

companies and/or affiliates under common ownership, including but not limited to, Dos 

Amigos Brands and Pafer Foods & Beverages.” [Kozaczuk Decl. at 13]. 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 12
6 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In its motion, SYM asserts that Pablo Paoli, the sole owner of Dos Amigos, appeared 

on behalf of Dos Amigos for the 30(b)(6) deposition, but he refused to answer material 

questions on Topic Nos. 18, 24, and 31, claiming privacy reasons. Mot. at 9, 11. SYM 

argues that (1) the parties entered into a Stipulated Protective Order [ECF No. 36] that 

would safeguard any private information and “obviates the refusal to answer questions 

based on privacy”; and (2) Mr. Paoli’s counsel effectively instructed Mr. Paoli not to 

answer questions by making her privacy objections. Mot. at 11-12. SYM also argues that 

Topic Nos. 18, 24, and 31 are relevant because (1) they relate to the debt Defendants owe 

to SYM, which is the “centerpiece of SYM’s claims”; (2) Mr. Paoli’s efforts to repay the 

debt to SYM is relevant and questions on this topic are likely to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence; (3) “Dos Amigos’ financial condition is relevant to Dos Amigos’ 

damages claims and will allow SYM’s retained damages expert to perform an independent 

analysis of these claims”; (4) “Dos Amigos’ relationship and business dealings with other 

companies and affiliates under common ownership is highly relevant to both SYM’s claims 

as well as SYM’s defenses to Defendants’ counterclaims” because SYM alleges that 

“Defendants diverted the money received from selling SYM’s products into other 

companies under common ownership”; and (5) Dos Amigos’ relationship with other 

companies under common ownership is also relevant to Defendants’ counterclaims 

because Defendants allege that they entered into an unwritten exclusive distribution 

agreement with SYM that is similar to agreements Dos Amigos entered into with other 

companies that Defendants own, and because Dos Amigos claims it incurred marketing 

and other expenses that should offset any debt to SYM. Id. at 8-9. 

In its opposition, Dos Amigos argues that Topic Nos. 18, 24 and 31 are not materially 

relevant to this lawsuit and that they seek to invade the privacy rights of Dos Amigos and 

third parties for the following reasons: (1) The information sought in these topics is 

irrelevant because in a previous order, the Court found other documents requested from a 

non-party to be irrelevant, stating, “The requested documents pertain to the financial 

condition of [Dos Amigos] and the Non-Party Entities and do not speak to the issue of 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 12
7 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

whether SYM breached the NDA or acted with fraud and deceit in the manner alleged in 

[Dos Amigos’] counterclaim”; [Oppo. at 5-6, quoting ECF No. 39 at 11 (Order Denying 

Plaintiff’s Motion For An Order To Show Cause Why A Contempt Citation Should Not 

Issue Against Alia Capital Partner, Inc.)]; and (2) the asserted privacy rights should weigh 

toward non-disclosure because SYM has failed to show “how and why the information it 

seeks is necessary, or even materially relevant, to the claims or defenses in this case.” 

[Oppo. at 7-8.] 

 1. Topic No. 18

 As stated above, “Topic No. 18: DOS AMIGOS’ alleged efforts to bring DOS 

AMIGOS’ debt to SYM current, including but not limited to, potential investment by Alia 

Capital Partners, the sale of the Chaparritas brand, and a potential loan from Pacific 

Commerce Bank.” Kozaczuk Decl. at 11. 

 The Court finds SYM has failed to establish Topic No. 18’s relevance. SYM argues 

Topic No. 18 is relevant because SYM alleges Defendants owe a debt to SYM, and Mr. 

Paoli’s efforts to repay this debt are relevant to this claim. However, SYM does not explain 

how the “potential investment by Alia Capital Partners, the sale of the Chaparritas brand, 

and a potential loan from Pacific Commerce Bank” referenced in Topic No. 18 are 

connected to “Mr. Paoli’s efforts to repay the debt to SYM.” A review of the First Amended 

Complaint [ECF No. 44] and Defendants’ counterclaims [ECF No. 4] also fail to show the 

relevance of these three transactions. Accordingly, the Court DENIES SYM’s motion to 

compel further deposition on Topic No. 18.2

 See Carrera v. First Am. Home Buyers Prot. 

Co., No. 13CV1585-BAS JLB, 2014 WL 3695403, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2014) (“[T]he 

requirement of Rule 26(b)(1) that the material sought in discovery be ‘relevant’ should be 

firmly applied . . . .” (quoting Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979))). 

/// 

                                               

2

 The Court notes that it is not persuaded by Dos Amigos’ argument that Topic No. 18 is irrelevant because 

of a prior Court order issued on May 24, 2018 [ECF No. 39]. See infra, Discussion, A.2. 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 12
8 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Topic No. 24 

 As stated above, “Topic No. 24: DOS AMIGOS’ financial condition from 2005 to 

the present.” Kozaczuk Decl. at 12. 

 First, the Court agrees with SYM that Topic No. 24 is relevant because Dos Amigos’ 

financial condition is relevant to Dos Amigos’ damages claims and will allow SYM’s 

retained damages expert to perform an independent analysis of these claims. See Gorlick 

Distribution Centers, LLC v. Car Sound Exhaust Sys., Inc., No. C07-1076RAJ, 2010 WL 

11526884, at *1-2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 27, 2010) (finding that requested financial 

information was at least marginally relevant to potential expert opinions regarding damage 

calculations, which included a claim for lost profits). 

The Court disagrees with Dos Amigos’ argument that Topic No. 24 is irrelevant 

because of the Court order issued on May 24, 2018 [ECF No. 39]. That order concerned a 

subpoena served by SYM upon Alia Capital Partners, Inc. (“Alia”) to produce documents 

and communications between Alia and VLH Accountants and Consultants (“VLH”) 

regarding a financial purchase audit report of Dos Amigos and two related companies 

created by VLH for Alia when Alia was interested in acquiring Dos Amigos. ECF No. 39 

at 2-3. With respect to relevance, SYM’s sole argument was related to Dos Amigos’ 

counterclaim. See id. at 10. The Court then stated, “The requested documents pertain to the 

financial condition of [Dos Amigos] and the Non-Party Entities and do not speak to the 

issue of whether SYM breached the NDA or acted with fraud and deceit in the manner 

alleged in [Dos Amigos’ counterclaim]. The VLH report is not needed for SYM to defend 

itself against [Dos Amigos’] counterclaims.” Id. at 11. Thus, the May 24, 2018 order 

finding the subpoena irrelevant was specific to the VLH report and its relevance as to Dos 

Amigos’ counterclaims. The Court did not make any determination of relevance as to Dos 

Amigos’ “financial condition” generally in the May 24, 2018 order. 

Regarding Dos Amigos’ privacy objection, the Court finds that SYM’s need for the 

information outweighs the privacy right asserted. See Applied Med. Distribution Corp. v. 

Ah Sung Int'l Inc., 2015 WL 12910698, at *3. Dos Amigos claims damages including lost 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 12
9 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

profits and loss of good will, and by doing so, has put its financial condition at issue, which 

weighs toward disclosure. See Valencia v. Crop Prod. Servs. Inc., No. 18-CV-0678-JAHMDD, 2018 WL 5840051, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2018) (“The Court finds that Plaintiff 

has placed his income directly in issue by claiming damages for lost profits.”) Additionally, 

Dos Amigos has not stated how it would be harmed by disclosing this information, which 

weighs toward disclosure. See Multiven, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. C 08-05391 JW 

(HRL), 2010 WL 2607135, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2010) (“Without more, simply 

asserting a privacy right does not outweigh a party's legitimate right to discover relevant 

facts concerning its defenses.”) The Court also finds that privacy concerns can be mitigated 

by the parties’ stipulated protective order [ECF No. 36]. See Textron Fin. Corp. v. 

Gallegos, No. 15CV1678-LAB (DHB), 2016 WL 4077505, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016) 

(finding a party’s concerns about financial privacy can be addressed through an appropriate 

protective order); Applied Med. Distribution Corp. v. Ah Sung Int'l Inc., 2015 WL 

12910698, at *3; In re Heritage Bond Litig., No. CV 02-1475-DT(RCX), 2004 WL 

1970058, at *5, n.12 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2004) (“Any privacy concerns [] defendants have 

in their bank records and related financial statements are adequately protected by the 

protective order, and are not sufficient to prevent production in this matter.”) Accordingly, 

the Court GRANTS SYM’s motion to compel further deposition of Dos Amigos’ 30(b)(6) 

witness on Topic No. 24. 

3. Topic No. 31 

 As stated above, “Topic No. 31: DOS AMIGOS’ relationship and business dealings 

with other companies and/or affiliates under common ownership, including but not limited 

to, Dos Amigos Brands and Pafer Foods & Beverages.” Kozaczuk Decl. at 13. 

First, the Court agrees with SYM that Topic No. 31 is relevant because Dos Amigos’ 

relationship and business dealings with other companies and affiliates under common 

ownership is relevant to SYM’s claims and defenses related to SYM’s allegations that “Mr. 

Paoli is the alter ego of Dos Amigos, and Mr. Paoli comingled funds and other assets 

between himself, Dos Amigos, and other entities that he owns.” Mot. at 9; 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 12
10 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

see also FAC, ¶ 5; Del Campo v. Am. Corrective Counseling Servs., Inc., No. C 01-21151 

JW, 2008 WL 4858502, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2008) (finding that the financial 

information sought was relevant to determine whether the “entity defendants” were merely 

alter egos of the “individual defendants”). As discussed above, the Court disagrees with 

Dos Amigos’ argument that Topic No. 31 is irrelevant because of the Court order issued 

on May 24, 2018 [ECF No. 39]. See supra, Discussion A.2. 

Regarding Dos Amigos’ privacy objection, the Court finds that SYM’s need for the 

information outweighs the privacy right asserted. See Applied Med. Distribution Corp. v. 

Ah Sung Int'l Inc., 2015 WL 12910698, at *3. SYM has demonstrated that Topic No. 31 is 

relevant to its claims and defenses regarding allegations that an alter ego relationship exists, 

which weighs toward disclosure. See Del Campo v. Am. Corrective Counseling Servs., 

Inc., 2008 WL 4858502, at *4. Additionally, Dos Amigos has not stated how it would be 

harmed by disclosing this information, which weighs toward disclosure. See Multiven, Inc. 

v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 2607135, at *3 (“Without more, simply asserting a privacy 

right does not outweigh a party's legitimate right to discover relevant facts concerning its 

defenses.”) The Court also finds that privacy concerns can be mitigated by the parties’ 

stipulated protective order [ECF No. 36]. See Del Campo v. Am. Corrective Counseling 

Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 4858502, at *5. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS SYM’s motion 

to compel further deposition of Dos Amigos’ 30(b)(6) witness on Topic No. 31. 

B. Additional Time For Deposition 

SYM requests that the Court order Dos Amigos to appear for an additional full day 

of deposition within five days because of “delay tactics” that forced SYM to spend hours 

during the original deposition to finally confirm that (1) Mr. Paoli was indeed the proper 

individual designated for each topic identified in the notice for Dos Amigos’ 30(b)(6) 

deposition, but (2) that Mr. Paoli refused to testify on Topic Nos. 18, 24, and 31. Mot. at 

9. Dos Amigos does not offer any arguments against SYM’s request for an additional day 

of deposition. However, the Court notes that defense counsel stated that following SYM’s 

deposition notice to Dos Amigos, she personally served on SYM’s counsel objections to 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 12
11 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the noticed deposition, which included objections to Topic Nos. 18, 24, and 31. ECF No. 

76-1, Declaration of Margarita Haugaard (“Haugaard Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-4. Defense counsel 

states that SYM failed to respond. Id., ¶¶ 6-8. 

The Court finds that both parties are partially at fault. Had the parties appropriately 

met and conferred after Dos Amigos objected to the noticed deposition, the issues could 

have been resolved prior to the deposition or in a Motion for Protective Order filed and 

resolved prior to the deposition. However, the Court finds that additional time to depose 

Dos Amigos’ 30(b)(6) witness is appropriate in light of the Court’s granting SYM’s motion 

to compel further deposition on Topic Nos. 24 and 31. See Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm't, 

Inc., No. CV049049DOCRNBX, 2011 WL 13128607, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2011) 

(finding additional time to examine the deponent was both necessary and fair to allow 

questions about subject matter not covered during the first deposition). Dos Amigos’ 

resumed deposition shall be limited to five hours on the record on Topic Nos. 24 and 31. 

CONCLUSION

 Plaintiff’s motion to compel Dos Amigos on 30(b)(6) topics and production of 

requested documents is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 

 1. SYM’s request for production of requested documents is deemed moot. 

2. SYM’s motion to compel further deposition from Dos Amigos’ 30(b)(6) 

witness on Topic No. 18 is DENIED. 

3 SYM’s motion to compel further deposition from Dos Amigos’ 30(b)(6) 

witness on Topic No. 24 is GRANTED. 

4. SYM’s motion to compel further deposition from Dos Amigos’ 30(b)(6) 

witness on Topic No. 31 is GRANTED. 

5. Dos Amigos’ resumed deposition shall be limited to seven hours on the 

record. 

6. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the date and location of Dos 

Amigos’ resumed deposition. The deposition must occur on or before March 5, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 12
12 

17cv1943-LAB (LL) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: February 19, 2019 

Case 3:17-cv-01943-LAB-LL Document 80 Filed 02/19/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 12