Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04115/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04115-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

Although defense counsel did not expressly state he was moving for a motion to limit the 2

deposition, the court assumes that was the purpose of the telephone hearing given the context of the

dispute. See FED.R.CIV.PRO. 30(c)(2) (“A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when

necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARGARITA GAETA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PERRIGO PHARMACEUTICALS

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-4115 JW (PVT)

ORDER RE MID-DEPOSITION

DISPUTE

On February 12, 2008, Plaintiff and Defendant Perrigo Pharmaceuticals Company appeared

by telephone before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull for hearing regarding a dispute which

arose during the deposition of Dr. Zeller. The dispute involved Defense counsel’s instruction to 1

Dr. Zeller not to answer questions about Plaintiffs’ experts’ reports. Based on the arguments

presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Perrigo Pharmaceuticals Company’s motion to

limit the deposition pursuant to Rule 30(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is DENIED. 2

Case 5:05-cv-04115-JW Document 153 Filed 02/12/08 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

uinder Rule 30(d)(3).”)

ORDER, page 2

Dr. Zeller shall answer the questions regarding Plaintiff’s experts’ reports.

Rule 30(d)(3) provides, in relevant part: 

“At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or

limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that

unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party.”

Defendant has not shown that the questions about Plaintiffs’ experts’ reports were either

asked in bad faith, or that they unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or oppress Dr. Zeller or Defendant. 

Defendant’s arguments regarding the propriety of asking these questions of Dr. Zeller goes to

whether his responses would be admissible, not whether they are discoverable. See, e.g., Boyd v.

University of Maryland Med. Sys., 173 F.R.D. 143, 148 (D.Md. 1997).

Dated: 2/12/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04115-JW Document 153 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 2