Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00607/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00607-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

1 07cv607

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT STILLWELL, et al., Civil No. 07cv607 JM (CAB)

Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR A

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO

COMPEL

[Doc. No. 76.]

v.

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for: (1) a Protective Order that precludes the Plaintiffs’

deposition from being taken; and (2) an Order compelling the production of Defendant's ESI documents

using search terms, and of custodians, proposed by Plaintiffs within the next 30 days. [Doc. No. 76.] 

Defendant has not yet filed an opposition.

Plaintiffs’ motion for the Protective Order is DENIED. Rule 30 provides that any party may

depose any person, including a party, without leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. Rule 26 provides that

the methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and discovery by one party does not require any

other party to delay its discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). In short, following the Rule 26(f) conference,

Defendant could have noticed the Plaintiffs’ depositions at any time, and its right to proceed with those

depositions was not dependent upon its compliance with Plaintiffs’ document production requests. 

Plaintiffs cannot condition their appearance at a properly noticed deposition on the completion of

Case 3:07-cv-00607-JM-CAB Document 77 Filed 07/24/09 Page 1 of 2
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 07cv607

Defendant's document production. Defendant may proceed with the depositions noticed to begin on

July 28, 2009. 

Similarly, Defendant cannot condition the completion of document production on Plaintiffs’

compliance with its deposition notices. Defendant may, however, file an opposition no later than July

31, 2009, to the motion to compel production of documents. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 24, 2009

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00607-JM-CAB Document 77 Filed 07/24/09 Page 2 of 2