Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-04404/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-04404-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fair Labor Standards 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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DALE ROYAL BUXTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EAGLE TEST SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C08-04404 RMW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO

DEPOSE PLAINTIFF

[Re: Docket No. 72]

In this employment case, plaintiff Dale Royal Buxton sues for alleged breach of contract

and wrongful termination. He lived in Singapore and worked for defendant Eagle Test Systems

(Eagle) as the company’s Vice President of Asia Operations. According to Buxton, defendant

subsequently lured him back to the United States with an offer of a better position in California,

heading a global sales group as Vice President of Sales–Fabless/Sub-Contractor. Buxton claims

that, in reliance on this offer, he relocated to California, only to be told that he would not have a

group to manage and that his job responsibilities would be limited. Shortly after, defendant

terminated plaintiff’s employment. Eagle contends that plaintiff was underperforming as Vice

President of Asia Operations, but that the company offered him the new position, believing that

Buxton could still be an asset. Eagle further claims that plaintiff was fired for insubordination

and because he refused to perform his new job duties.

Eagle deposed plaintiff over several days for a total of about 15 hours—more than twice

*E-FILED 08-09-2010*

Case 5:08-cv-04404-RMW Document 80 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 4
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

the presumptive limit set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Claiming that this is a

complex case, and further asserting that plaintiff often gave answers which were “sprawling”

and non-responsive, defendant now moves for four additional hours to examine him. Plaintiff

opposes the motion. This matter is deemed appropriate for determination without oral

argument, and the August 31, 2010 hearing is vacated. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon

consideration of the moving and responding papers, this court grants the motion in part and

denies it in part.

“Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7

hours.” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(d)(1). Nevertheless, “[t]he court must allow additional time

consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent,

another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.” Id. Pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), the court must limit the extent or frequency of discovery if it finds that

(a) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from a

source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive, (b) the party seeking

discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information through discovery; or (c) the

burden or expense of the discovery sought outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of

the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake,

and the importance of the discovery in resolving those issues. FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii).

Eagle’s assertions as to the complexity of this case are exaggerated. Although his

employment with Eagle lasted for about six years, plaintiff contends that the only relevant

timeframe is the six-month period surrounding his relocation to California and the date of his

termination. Eagle disagrees and says that the relevant time period is much broader because

plaintiff’s entire employment history is pertinent to the company’s defense. Even so, Eagle’s

opening brief presented little more than generalities, rather than a solid detailed showing as to

why additional time is needed. And, while Eagle is frustrated with the way in which plaintiff

answered some questions, the few deposition excerpts Eagle cites in its reply do not establish

that plaintiff’s conduct seriously impaired defendant’s ability to obtain a fair examination

during the fifteen hours of deposition that have already been taken. At the same time, however,

Case 5:08-cv-04404-RMW Document 80 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 4
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 Plaintiff says that, earlier this month, he moved back to Singapore. Defendant

is willing to depose him by telephonic means. The parties may stipulate, or the court may

upon motion order, that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means. FED. R.

CIV. P. 30(b)(4). For purposes of this rule, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(a), 37(a)(2) and 37(b)(1),

“the deposition takes place where the deponent answers the questions.” Id. Here, there is no

information presented by which this court may meaningfully assess whether such means are

feasible, practical, or fair. Accordingly, this court declines to order that plaintiff’s deposition

be taken telephonically. However, examination by such means will not be precluded if the

parties agree to it.

3

plaintiff cites to no particular examples to support his contention that defense counsel’s

examination was conducted in an inefficient manner. Defense counsel acknowledges that he

did not examine plaintiff as effectively as he should have during the second and third deposition

sessions, albeit counsel attributes this to the fact that he was feeling quite ill at that time. 

Moreover, this court finds that no undue burden will be imposed on plaintiff if defendant is

permitted to further depose him for some limited period of time.

Based on the foregoing, defendant will be given an additional opportunity to depose

plaintiff. However, the deposition shall not exceed 1.5 hours. Additionally, the deposition shall

occur at a time, place and location convenient to plaintiff and his counsel.1

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

August 9, 2010

Case 5:08-cv-04404-RMW Document 80 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 4
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

5:08-cv-04404-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Aniesa Rice aniesa.rice@kattenlaw.com

Aryeh Matthew Hersher ahersher@seyfarth.com

Michael J. Burns , Esq mburns@seyfarth.com

Robert Herbert Bohn , Sr bbohn@bohnlaw.com, cindy@bohnlaw.com, jodie@bohnlaw.com

Ryan James Larsen ryan.larsen@kattenlaw.com

Stacey Dianne McKee-Knight stacey.knight@kattenlaw.com

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.

Case 5:08-cv-04404-RMW Document 80 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 4