Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04945/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04945-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 V

RCMC, INC, et al,

Defendant.

 /

No C 06-4945 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company

(Fidelity) requested the court’s assistance in resolving a

discovery dispute detailed in a letter dated March 7, 2007. 

Therein, Fidelity sought leave of court pursuant to FRCP 30(d)(2)

to depose individual defendant Peter Richardson (Richardson) for

two to three days, each day lasting seven hours. Richardson is the

president of company defendant RCMC, Inc, the person within RCMC,

Inc who was Fidelity’s principal contact concerning the payment and

performance of bond claims and the person who approved payments

made by Fidelity on those claims. Richardson’s deposition is

Case 3:06-cv-04945-VRW Document 135 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

currently scheduled for March 29, 2007. The fact discovery

deadline in this action is March 30, 2007.

Pursuant to this court’s order, defendants responded by

letter on March 20, 2007. Doc ##133, 134. Counsel for Richardson

confirms that Richardson’s deposition is scheduled for March 29,

2007. Doc #133 at 4. Counsel also reports that Richardson will be

produced the following day, March 30, 2007, as RCMC’s “person most

knowledgeable.” Id. Accordingly, Fidelity will have two days in

which to depose Richardson as Fidelity requests.

The court does not find it necessary to require a third

day of deposition at this point for the following reasons: Fidelity

specifically requested “two or possibly three days,” implying that

two days would be sufficient. The purported need for Fidelity’s

request was Richardson’s “extensive personal knowledge,” which will

be satisfied via a PMK deposition. The discovery cutoff of March

30, 2007 along with the twelve depositions scheduled from March 13,

2007 to March 30, 2007, Doc #133 at 2, leave no time for a third

day of deposition. Finally, counsel for Richardson reports that

Richardson has experienced recent health problems, including a

recent surgery, making a third day of deposition potentially

burdensome. Of course, nothing in this order prevents the parties

from exceeding seven hours of deposition on March 29 and March 30

if the extra time is mutually agreeable and sought in good faith.

\\

\\

\\

Case 3:06-cv-04945-VRW Document 135 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Finally, defendants’ response letters suggest that this

action should be stayed pending the outcome of the state actions. 

Doc #133 at 3-4; Doc #134 at 1. If defendants seek a stay, such

request must be made by properly noticed motion, which must include

time for Fidelity to respond.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04945-VRW Document 135 Filed 03/21/07 Page 3 of 3