Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02521/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02521-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

MAJID PAJOUH,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2521-WQH-JLB

Order

vs.

CALIFORNIA BUSINESS BUREAU,

INC.,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Ex Parte Motion to Appeal Magistrate Judge’s

Order to Plaintiff to be Deposed filed by Plaintiff Majid Pajouh. (ECF No. 43). 

On or around August 25, 2014, Defendant California Business Bureau prepared

a Notice of Taking Deposition of Plaintiff Majid Pajouh, set for September 16, 2014,

in Encino, California. (ECF No. 43 at 7). The attached proof of service, filed by

Plaintiff as an exhibit, states that the notice was served by mail on August 25, 2014 but

is unsigned. Id. at 9. On September 3 and 9, 2014, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt

held discovery conferences between Plaintiff and Defendant. (ECF No. 42). Following

discussion on September 3, 2014, and argument presented on September 9, 2014, the

Magistrate Judge found that Defendant was not precluded by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure in noticing a deposition more than 100 miles from Plaintiff’s home in

Encino, California. Id. at 2. The Magistrate Judge also found that, as of September 9,

2014, Plaintiff was in receipt of and served with the deposition notice. Id. The Court

ordered that “the deposition go forward as noticed for Encino, California on September

- 1 - 13cv2521-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02521-WQH-JLB Document 54 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 3
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

16, 2014.” Id. 

On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Appeal Magistrate Judge’s

Order. (ECF No. 43). On September 15, 2014, in light of Plaintiff’s appeal, the Court

ordered that the deposition of Plaintiff be stayed. (ECF No. 46). On September 19,

2014, Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 49). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that “[t]he district judge in the

case must consider timely objections [to nondispositive decisions of the assigned

magistrate judge] and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous

or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge’s order should be overruled because 

Rule 30 “does not permit Plaintiff to be Deposed 133 miles from his residence in San

Diego, CA” and Rule 45(c)(1)(A)-(B) only applies to non-parties. (ECF No. 43 at 2). 

Plaintiff also contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in ordering that he be deposed

in Encino because the deposition notice was defective. Plaintiff asserts that the proof

of service of the deposition notice contains no signature. 

 Defendant contends that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a party to

an action to be deposed anywhere in the state of California. Defendant also contends

that Local Civil Rule 5.2 specifically provides that a failure to make proper proof of

service does not affect the validity of the service. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1)(B) provides that “a party” may be

subpoenaed “to attend a trial, hearing or deposition.... within the state where the person,

resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B). 

The plain language of Rule 45 allows for Plaintiff, a resident of California, to be

deposed in Encino, also in California. Rule 30 provides no limitation on where

depositions can be noticed. The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling that

Plaintiff may be deposed in Encino, California was not “clearly erroneous” or “contrary

to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

Local Civil Rule 5.2 provides that proofs of service of served papers “must be

- 2 - 13cv2521-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02521-WQH-JLB Document 54 Filed 09/25/14 Page 2 of 3
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

filed in the clerk’s office promptly and in any event before action is to be taken thereon

by the court or the parties.” S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 5.2. “[F]ailure to make the proof

of service required by this subdivision does not affect the validity of the service....” Id. 

The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had been effectively served with the

deposition notice as of September 9, 2014. Plaintiff has presented no evidence that he

was not properly served. By submitting the deposition notice as an exhibit, it appears

that Plaintiff was in fact served. (ECF No. 43 at 7). Plaintiff cites no authority for the

proposition that the serving party must serve a signed proof of service on the party

being served in order to effectuate service. The Court concludes that the Magistrate

Judge’s finding that Plaintiff was effectively served with the deposition notice was not

“clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion to Appeal Magistrate

Judge’s Order to Plaintiff to be Deposed (ECF No. 43) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay on the deposition of Plaintiff (ECF No.

46) is LIFTED. Defendant may notice a deposition of Plaintiff in Encino. 

DATED: September 25, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv2521-WQH-JLB

Case 3:13-cv-02521-WQH-JLB Document 54 Filed 09/25/14 Page 3 of 3