Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04906/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04906-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

 The unopposed motion of the minor plaintiffs for the appointment of a new guardian ad

litem was noticed for the same date and has been granted by separate order entered previously.

1

*E-FILED 1/8/08*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GIUSEPPE “NINO” CAMPANELLA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JEFFREY LONGORIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. 04-04906 RS

Consolidated With Case No. 05-1945 RS

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES

I. INTRODUCTION

 Defendants brought several separately noticed motions regarding various discovery disputes

that ultimately were all set for hearing on December 14, 2007.1

 By order entered on November 30,

2007, the Court observed, “it is apparent that the relationship between counsel is not functioning as

it should.” Accordingly, lead counsel for the parties were ordered to engage in an in-person, face-toface, conference to discuss all then-pending discovery disputes, and to file a joint letter brief

reporting the results of their meet and confer conference. The parties complied with that order. This

order, therefore, addresses only the disputes remaining after that meet and confer process.

Case 5:04-cv-04906-RS Document 174 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 6
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

 Consistent with the Court’s standing order, the parties may request a telephonic hearing on

an emergency basis when a dispute arises during a deposition, but they should be prepared to

complete the deposition to the extent possible in the event that the Court is not available to address

the issue immediately.

2

II. DISCUSSION

A. Deposition of Elisa Teel

On October 29, 2007, defendants filed a motion for a “protective order” seeking an order

instructing plaintiffs’ counsel to refrain from making what defendants contend were improper

“speaking objections” during depositions. Defendants’ motion appeared to seek an order that would

apply to all subsequent depositions, although it only specifically listed the depositions of Elise Teel

and those of plaintiffs Giuseppe and Lynette Campanella. On November 15, 2007, defendants filed

a separate motion seeking the same relief with respect to the deposition of Filipinas Jovel.

The parties have now stipulated, without admission of fault on either side, that neither side

will make speaking objections during any future depositions in these actions. That stipulation is

appropriate and will be deemed enforceable as an order of the Court.2

 The parties have further

agreed that the deposition of Filipinas Jovel will go forward.

The parties have also compromised in their meet and confer negotiations that a further

deposition of Elisa Teel is appropriate. Teel, however, resides in Jackson, California, which

apparently is a three and one-half hour drive each way for plaintiffs’ counsel. At the hearing,

defense counsel represented that his remaining questioning of Teel could be completed in one-half

hour or less. 

The Court has already noted the obvious breakdown in civility and cooperation between

counsel. The Court cannot and will not attempt to determine whose fault initiated the breakdown,

nor will the Court attempt to determine whether one side bears more responsibility than the other for

the situation overall. The record does, however, reflect that plaintiffs’ counsel frequently is inclined

to attempt to explain the objections he interposes, and to offer suggestions as to how, in his view,

questions could be better phrased. Even assuming those explanations and suggestions are offered in

a good faith attempt to expedite the depositions and without any intent to “coach” the witnesses,

Case 5:04-cv-04906-RS Document 174 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 6
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

defendants are correct that such commentary is generally improper.

Conversely, however, the record also shows an unnecessarily combative approach on the part

of defense counsel. In addition to a tendency to interrupt, defense counsel appears to vacillate

between, on the one hand, having no tolerance for anything that remotely could be considered a

“speaking objection” and, on the other hand, refusing to allow plaintiffs’ counsel to stand on

concisely-stated objections. See, e.g. Deposition of Domenica Campanella, ¶. 86-92 (Mr. Schmidt:

“I don’t know what you mean by that objection” . . . . Mr. Bernstein: “My objection stands . . . . 

assumes facts not in evidence. Mr. Schmid: No, No, No, Tell me – tell me – show me the rule that

says I can’t ask her that question without showing her the depo . . . . Cite anything other than Adam

Bernstein on discovery . . . .”).

Against this backdrop, determining which party was “more” at fault when the Teel

deposition was terminated would serve only to condone implicitly behavior that both parties are

obliged to avoid. In light of defendants’ representation that Teel’s deposition can be completed in

one half-hour or less, the Court rules as follows:

In the event either side subpoenas Elisa Teel to appear and give testimony at trial, the Court

will require Teel to appear in San Jose for deposition of up to 1.5 hours on the morning of the day

she is subpoenaed to appear for trial. The Court anticipates that the parties will cooperate to

minimize any inconvenience to Ms. Teel and to make alternative scheduling arrangement to the

extent she may so prefer.

B. Deposition of Lynette Campanella

Defendants insist the case management order in these consolidated actions permitted them to

depose the Campanellas for up to 14 hours each, and that they never agreed to any lesser period of

time. Counting the minutes, defendants contend they have 2 hours and 58 minutes remaining to

depose Lynette Campanella. Plaintiffs contend that when further depositions for the Campanellas

were scheduled, it was understood and agreed that each deposition would be completed within one

day. Accordingly, plaintiffs terminated those depositions at 5:00 p.m., after having offered to take

shorter lunch breaks to ensure the depositions could be completed. 

Case 5:04-cv-04906-RS Document 174 Filed 01/08/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

Although it does not appear that the parties ever reached any express or definitive agreement

to limit the Campanellas’ depositions to less than the 14 hours each permitted by the Court’s case

management order, the record does support plaintiffs’ contention that there was at least an implied

understanding that the depositions would be completed on the day of each of the continued sessions. 

Additionally, the presumptive limit of seven hours for a deposition is only that–a presumption. 

Defendants have failed to show that they have a need to depose Lynette Campanella for a full 14

hours. 

That said, plaintiffs agreed in meet and confer negotiations to produce Lynette Campanella

for an additional one and one half hours of testimony. At the hearing, defendants declined to

concede that they needed less than the full 14 hours, but did suggest that they might be able to

complete Lynette Campanella’s deposition in “at least” two hours. Parties should not be asking the

Court to determine whether a deposition should go forward for one and a half hours as opposed to

two hours, or even 3 hours. The matter having been presented, however, the Court concludes that

there is good cause to permit Lynette Campanella’s depostion to resume for up to two hours.

C. Deposition of Guissepe Campanella

Defendants contend that they have the right to depose Guiseppe Campanella for an

additional 4 hours and 51 minutes and that they have the need to depose him for at least four hours. 

Putting aside Campanella’s health issues, the Court concludes there is good cause to permit his

further deposition for up to four hours. As defense counsel stated at the hearing, however, health

issues are “paramount.” The declaration provided by Campanella’s primary care physician

sufficiently establishes that requiring Campanella to submit to a further deposition in the immediate

future would create an undue risk to his health.

Campanella, however, is a plaintiff in this civil action and presumably has an obligation both

to appear for deposition and at trial. Accordingly, within 20 days of the date of this order, plaintiffs

counsel shall submit a proposal, supported by such legal authority and factual declarations as may be

appropriate, as to how and when trial in this matter shall go forward in light of Campanella’s

medical condition. That proposal shall include provisions for Campanella’s deposition to take place

Case 5:04-cv-04906-RS Document 174 Filed 01/08/08 Page 4 of 6
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 ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

04-04906 RS 

5

prior to trial, unless plaintiffs can show that such deposition can be legally excused.

III. CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motions are granted to the extent set forth above and are otherwise denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2008 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04906-RS Document 174 Filed 01/08/08 Page 5 of 6
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 ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

04-04906 RS 

6

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Mina Almassi mina@maslawinc.com

Adam Richard Bernstein bernsteinlaw@earthlink.net, jagarini@earthlink.net

Aryn Paige Harris aryn_harris@cco.co.scl.ca.us

Stephen H. Schmid stephen.schmid@cco.co.santa-clara.ca.us

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 1/8/08 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Chambers 

Case 5:04-cv-04906-RS Document 174 Filed 01/08/08 Page 6 of 6