Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04633/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04633-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP FUREY,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMSON REUTERS AMERICA 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04633-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING 8/3/16 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 45

On August 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding the order of 

depositions. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 45.) Specifically, whether Defendants are required to produce 

Kevin Regan, an employee with knowledge pertaining to the engagement of Plaintiff’s services, 

prior to Plaintiff’s deposition. (Joint Letter at 1.) 

Defendants contend that they first requested dates for Plaintiff’s deposition as early as 

January 2016, which Plaintiff disputes. On June 7, 2016, Plaintiff requested dates for Mr. Regan’s 

deposition, and served a notice of deposition for Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee. 

(Joint Letter at 2.) On that same day, Defendant served a notice for deposition on Plaintiff to 

undergo deposition on July 12, 2016. Id.

Plaintiff contends that he has “deposition priority,” such that he has the right to depose Mr. 

Regan before he undergoes deposition. (Joint Letter at 3-4.) Plaintiff cites the Northern District 

Guidelines for Professional conduct, which provides that “[w]hen a deposition is scheduled and 

noticed by another party for the reasonably near future, a lawyer should ordinarily not schedule 

another deposition for an earlier date without the agreement of opposing counsel.” Northern 

District Guidelines for Professional Conduct ¶ 9(d). As an initial matter, “deposition priority” does 

not exist. Second, Plaintiff does not appear to have noticed Mr. Regan’s deposition, so Paragraph 

Case 4:15-cv-04633-KAW Document 46 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

9(d) does not apply.

Accordingly, as Plaintiff was properly served with a deposition notice, he is ordered to 

appear for deposition on August 15-17, 24, or 25, or at the earliest available date that is practicable 

for both parties, without regard to the date for Mr. Regan’s deposition. The Court is confident 

that, going forward, the parties will meet and confer in good faith regarding the scheduling of 

other depositions and will not require further court intervention.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04633-KAW Document 46 Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 2