Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02524/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02524-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN D. STEIN, Civil

No.

12-CV-2524-BTM (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING JOINT

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION

OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE

[DOC. NO. 104.]

v.

TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, a

California Healthcare District; LARRY

B. ANDERSON, an individual,

Defendant.

INTRODUCTION

On December 17, 2013, per this Court’s Chambers’ Rules regarding discovery

disputes, counsel for all parties jointly contacted the Court. The parties informed the

Court that they had a discovery dispute regarding the sequence of Plaintiff Stein’s and

Defendant Anderson’s depositions. On December 18, 2013, the Court requested

additional information to determine the extent of the issue at hand. (Doc. No. 99.) On

December 20, 2013, the parties filed their joint statement in response to the Court’s

request. (Doc. No. 100.) After reviewing the parties joint statement, the Court ordered

the parties to file a joint motion for determination of a discovery dispute. (Doc. No. 101.)

On January 3, 2014, the parties filed their joint motion. (Doc. No. 104.) 

///

///

1 12cv2524-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02524-BTM-BGS Document 106 Filed 02/04/14 Page 1 of 4
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

THE DISPUTE

In a nutshell, Plaintiff wants to take Anderson’s deposition before his own

deposition takes place. (Doc. No. 104 at 4.) Plaintiff noticed Anderson’s deposition

first, and relies on priority to move that Anderson’s deposition should therefore be first.

(Id. at 4-5) Plaintiff’s expressed rationale for wanting to take Anderson’s deposition

before his own is to avoid the possibility that Anderson would color his testimony based

upon knowledge of Stein’s deposition testimony. (Id. at 5.)

Defendant on the other hand contends that it is in the interests of justice to take

Stein’s deposition before Anderson’s. (Id. at 2.) He contends that Stein’s deposition

will undoubtedly reveal what non-privileged information Stein can offer to support his

claims. (Id. at 4). Defendant maintains that to the extent there are any disputes over what

is privileged, those will be worked out in the course of Stein’s deposition. (Id.) 

Defendant suggests the proper procedure for working out these disputes is for the

objecting party to make a motion and receive a decision from the Court. (Id. At 3-4).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Unless, on motion, the court orders otherwise for the parties’ and witnesses’

convenience and in the interests of justice, 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. R. 26(d)(2); United States v. Bartesch, 110 F.R.D. 128, 129

(N.D. Ill. 1984). The 1970 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

established this provision. The Advisory Committee Notes to the 1970 Amendments

explain the effect of Rule 26(d):

The principal effects of the new provision are first, to eliminate any fixed

priority in the sequence of discovery, and second, to make clear and explicit

the court’s power to establish priority by order issued in a particular case.

48 F.R.D. 487, 506 (1970). 

Courts do not routinely grant protective orders altering the sequence of

depositions. “Good cause” is required—i.e., a specific reason why one party’s deposition

2 12cv2524-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02524-BTM-BGS Document 106 Filed 02/04/14 Page 2 of 4
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

should be taken before other depositions are allowed. California Practice Guide:

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2012). 

DISCUSSION

In the present case both parties seek to have the Court order their requested

sequence of depositions. Plaintiff relies on the now defunct priority rule as well as

tactical advantage, while Defendant claims the interests of justice will be served, a

showing required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(2). The proper inquiry under this rule is

whether either party has met its burden of good cause with the particular focus being on

the interests of justice. The Court finds neither party meets this standard, and denies

both motions for a sequence order under Fed. R. Civ. R. 26(d)(2).

The Defendant’s justification for good cause relies on the ground that ordering

Stein’s deposition first will facilitate discovery in that the information learned from that

deposition will define the parameters and scope of discovery going forward. (Doc. 104 at

4). The Court disagrees with Defendant’s position. Defendant states that any disputes

that arise over privilege during Stein’s deposition will be worked out in the course of the

deposition. (Id.) Yet the procedure Defendant suggests involves filing motions for a

judicial interpretation of each asserted privilege. (Id. at 4-5). This suggested procedure

certainly will not have the desired result, i.e., the disputes will be worked out at the

deposition and the deposition will define the scope of discovery going forward. In

effect, what will occur is the parties will have a discovery dispute over what is privileged

and will be required by the Court’s chambers’ rules to follow the set procedure for

resolving discovery disputes. The bottom line is the sequence of depositions will not

have the claimed effect of facilitating the discovery dispute procedure, and thereby

define the scope of discovery going forward. 

Additionally, the parties agreed in their joint discovery plan to provide appropriate

privilege logs and to meet and confer over the scope of discovery when privilege

becomes an issue. (Doc. No. 71 at 2-3). This procedure certainly facilitates the

discovery goals, not the motion presently before the Court. As such, Defendant has not

3 12cv2524-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02524-BTM-BGS Document 106 Filed 02/04/14 Page 3 of 4
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

established good cause to grant a motion to sequence the order of depositions. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s request for an Order requiring Plaintiff Stein to be deposed

first is DENIED.

Plaintiff states that he has scheduled the deposition of Defendant Anderson first in

order to gain a tactical advantage. (Doc. 104 at 5) Plaintiff does not want Defendant

Anderson to be in the position of having knowledge of the deposition testimony of

Plaintiff Stein, which according to him, would color Anderson’s testimony. (Id.) Plaintiff

relies on priority to achieve this sequence goal. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff also offered to make

himself available immediately after Defendant Anderson’s deposition and has stipulated

to all depositions being taken under seal. (Id. at 5.)

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), discovery generally may be conducted by any party in

any sequence desired. A motion for an order fixing the sequence or timing of discovery

under Rule 26(d) is appropriate, however, when a certain sequence or timing of

discovery is necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and is in the

interest of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). The Court finds that the reasons proffered by

Plaintiff as to why Defendant Anderson should be required to be deposed first do not

meet the standard set forth in Rule 26(d). Plaintiff does not argue that the sequence of

discovery be fixed for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Further, it is not in

the interest of justice for the Court to choose sides and uphold one party’s request for a

tactical advantage over the other. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an Order requiring

Defendant Anderson to be deposed first is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 4, 2014

Hon. Bernard G. Skomal

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

4 12cv2524-BTM

Case 3:12-cv-02524-BTM-BGS Document 106 Filed 02/04/14 Page 4 of 4