Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03100/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03100-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL PARAGON

CORPORATION and SUNQUEST

PROPERTIES, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY

LIMITED, et al., 

Defendant(s).

 

AND RELATED CLAIMS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-3100 MJJ (BZ)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF

UNIVERSAL PARAGON CORP.’S

REQUEST FOR AN ORDER

COMPELLING DEPOSITION

ATTENDANCE

Before me is plaintiff Universal Paragon Corp.’s request

for an order compelling the attendance of Mr. Gregory O’Hara

at a deposition on January 29, 2007. Following a telephonic

discovery conference at which all interested parties were

represented by counsel, I find that no further briefing or

argument is necessary. I conclude that I cannot issue the

requested order.

Under the circumstances presented, I would normally grant

plaintiff’s request. In particular, I do not find persuasive

Case 3:05-cv-03100-TEH Document 205 Filed 01/25/07 Page 1 of 2
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

defendant Ingersoll-Rand Co.’s argument that Mr. O’Hara -

defendant’s lead trial counsel and, thus, a third party to the

suit - may refuse to appear at a duly noticed subpoena,

without abiding by the procedures set forth in FRCP 45, simply

because he believes that his testimony may not be relevant

following the resolution of summary judgment proceedings. Nor

can it be that defendant’s promise to produce Mr. O’Hara at

such later time as it wishes excuses Mr. O’Hara’s failure to

appear.

During the conference, however, plaintiff admitted that

the discovery cut-off date set by Judge Jenkins has passed. 

While both parties stated that they had agreed to accommodate

certain discovery beyond the cut-off date, I will not enforce

an agreement in derogation of Judge Jenkins’ deadlines. 

For the reasons set forth, plaintiff’s request for an

order compelling Mr. O’Hara’s attendance at a deposition is

DENIED. 

Dated: January 25, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\UNIVERSAL PARAGON\DISC9.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-03100-TEH Document 205 Filed 01/25/07 Page 2 of 2