Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00829/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00829-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 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

1 Defendants do not say they have Judge Ware's permission to file what would

surely be "last minute" reply papers. 

*E-filed 2/16/07*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THOMAS LEONARD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BIMBO BAKERIES USA, et al.,

Defendants. /

Case No. C05-00829 JW (HRL)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR

ORDER SHORTENING TIME, STAYING

DEPOSITION, AND RESCHEDULING

HEARING DATE WITH BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

Re: Docket No. 223

Plaintiffs have noticed for hearing on March 27, 2007 a "Motion to Limit Deposition

Subpoena and Examination at Deposition" of their expert, Michael Elliott. In effect, this

motion seeks a protective order respecting the production of certain documents at the deposition

and an inquiry into certain subjects. Plaintiffs have also filed an application for an order

shortening time so that the motion may be heard on February 20, 2007. Defendants say

February 20 is too soon but suggest March 6 (a date which, supposedly, would give them time

to take Elliott's deposition and then use that testimony in support of their motions set for hearing

before Judge Ware on March 121

). 

The court concludes that neither side has made a compelling case for shortening time,

either to February 20 or to March 6. The deposition of Elliott is stayed until further order of

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 229 Filed 02/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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

this court. If defendants can in good faith claim that his deposition testimony is important to

their motions, then it is quite likely that Judge Ware would continue that hearing. 

Because March 27 is not an agreeable date for this court, the motion for a protective

order is set for 10:00 AM on March 20, 2007. Defendants' opposition shall be filed by

February 27. Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due March 6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/16/07 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 229 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Elizabeth Jean Carroll betsy.carroll@bingham.com, suga.ikeda@bingham.com 

Carolyn Blecha Hall carolyn.hall@bingham.com, jolyn.parker@bingham.com 

Wendy M. Lazerson wendy.lazerson@bingham.com 

Dennis Frank Moss jeanette@spiromoss.com 

Katherine J. Odenbreit , Mrs kodenbreit@smbhblaw.com, secretary@smbhblaw.com 

Ira Spiro ispiro@smbhblaw.com 

Robert Ira Spiro ispiro@smbhblaw.com, clerk@smbhblaw.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel who have not

registered under the Court's ECF system.

Dated: 2/16/07

 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-00829-JW Document 229 Filed 02/16/07 Page 3 of 3