Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

1There may not be. Defendant’s own description of what they seek is “to examine Mr. Uroupa on

this new statement by Mr. Ikenyan and determine whether it refreshes his recollection that he in fact

committed, and admitted to, the forgery.” Def. Br. at 1 (emphasis added).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BOWOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CHEVRONTEXACO CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 99-02506 SI

ORDER RE: ROBINSON UROUPA

DEPOSITION

By letter briefs, the parties bring before the Court a discovery dispute regarding the upcoming

deposition of Robinson Uroupa. At a November 9, 2005, case management conference, the Court ruled that

defendants could question Uroupa for ten minutes regarding the forged verification of Obele Ignone. The

parties now seek clarification of the scope of questioning that the Court contemplated in its ruling.

To the extent there is a difference between the parties’ positions,1the Court agrees with plaintiffs.

Defendants may question Uroupa about the statements John Ikenyanmade in his interrogatory responses, but

may not go beyond those statements to question Uroupa about other conversations he may have had with

Ikenyan or Ignone.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 759 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 2
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

1There may not be. Defendant’s own description of what they seek is “to examine Mr. Uroupa on

this new statement by Mr. Ikenyan and determine whether it refreshes his recollection that he in fact

committed, and admitted to, the forgery.” Def. Br. at 1 (emphasis added).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BOWOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CHEVRONTEXACO CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 99-02506 SI

ORDER RE: ROBINSON UROUPA

DEPOSITION

By letter briefs, the parties bring before the Court a discovery dispute regarding the upcoming

deposition of Robinson Uroupa. At a November 9, 2005, case management conference, the Court ruled that

defendants could question Uroupa for ten minutes regarding the forged verification of Obele Ignone. The

parties now seek clarification of the scope of questioning that the Court contemplated in its ruling.

To the extent there is a difference between the parties’ positions,1the Court agrees with plaintiffs.

Defendants may question Uroupa about the statements John Ikenyanmade in his interrogatory responses, but

may not go beyond those statements to question Uroupa about other conversations he may have had with

Ikenyan or Ignone.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 759 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 2