Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01561/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01561-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I-ENTERPRISE CO.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DRAPER FISHER JURVETSON

MANAGEMENT CO., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-03-01561 MMC (EDL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

OF NOTE PASSED DURING

DEPOSITION 

As part of Defendants’ Motion to Compel filed on October 4, 2005, Defendants sought production

of a note that was shown to deponent Stephen Roy by his counsel during Mr. Roy’s deposition. At the

hearing on Defendants’ motion, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to submit declarations regarding the

contents of the note and the efforts made to locate it, which counsel did on November 15, 2005. Also at

the hearing, Defendants provided a DVD containing the videotaped deposition of Mr. Roy. 

The Court has carefully reviewed both the DVD and the declarations. It is unclear from the DVD

whether a question was pending at the time the note was allegedly shown to Mr. Roy. At one point, Mr.

Roy waves his hand in the general direction of someone off camera (presumably his counsel), but the video

does not show a note or that Mr. Roy read a note. Further, the note no longer exists; it was thrown away

at the deposition. Peters Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Even if the note still existed, the Court has reviewed Mr. Roy’s

attorney’s declaration in camera and it is satisfied that the contents of the note had nothing to do with a

pending question, if any. Ex parte Peters Decl. ¶ 3. 

Case 3:03-cv-01561-MMC Document 560 Filed 11/16/05 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

2

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel production of the note is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-01561-MMC Document 560 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2