Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00198/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00198-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SANTANA ROW HOTEL PARTNERS, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

COMPANY, GALLAGHER-PIPINO, INC. and

ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO.,

Defendants. /

No. C05-00198 RMW (HRL)

ORDER SETTING HEARING ON

ZURICH’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER

AUTHORIZING DEPOSITIONS IN

EXCESS OF 10

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, defendant Zurich American Insurance Company

(“Zurich”) filed a “Motion for Administrative Relief Authorizing Depositions in Excess of 10.” 

It requests an expedited hearing or order on its motion. Defendants Gallagher-Pipino, Inc. and

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (“Gallagher Defendants”) join in Zurich’s motion and also request an

expedited hearing. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that it is procedurally improper and

deficient as to the merits.

Preliminarily, it is not clear what, if any, meet-and-confer efforts were made before the

instant motion was filed. Additionally, this court agrees that the instant motion is governed by

Fed.R.Civ.P. 30, and was not properly brought pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, which by its

terms applies to “miscellaneous administrative matters, not otherwise governed by federal

statute, Federal or local rule or standing order of the assigned judge.” CIV. L.R. 7-11.

*E-FILED ON 2/7/06*

Case 5:05-cv-00198-JW Document 81 Filed 02/07/06 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

In any event, this court is not persuaded that expedition is warranted. The record

presented indicates that (1) the District Court will hear dispositive motions on liability issues on

March 27, 2006, and (2) defendants wish to depose plaintiff to prepare their respective motions

on those issues. Defendants apparently have served separate Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition

notices on plaintiff for each topic of examination. Although plaintiff objected to these multiple

Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition notices, it indicates that it will produce a single witness to

testify as to the noticed topics.

Boiled to its essence, the instant dispute appears to turn on the determination of how

defendants’ multiple Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition notices are to be counted against the

presumptive ten-deposition limit. Nevertheless, the parties say that they have reached an

impasse on the overarching issue as to whether each side should be allowed more than ten

depositions, and it appears that the dispute may affect their discovery efforts beyond their

anticipated dispositive motions on liability issues.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The parties shall meet/confer on the issues in dispute. No later than February

14, 2006, each party shall file a declaration (a) detailing their meet/confer efforts on the issues;

and (b) identifying the specific issues, if any, that have been resolved, as well as those that

remain in dispute.

2. No later than February 14, 2006, Zurich and the Gallagher Defendants shall

each file a reply. Their replies shall include the authority for and the effect of a litigant noticing

multiple depositions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) of a single corporate party.

3. No later than February 14, 2006, Zurich and the Gallagher Defendants shall

submit to the court copies of their Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) notices for plaintiff’s deposition.

4. This matter is set for hearing on February 28, 2006, 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom

2.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

February 7, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-00198-JW Document 81 Filed 02/07/06 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

5:05-cv-198 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Steven A. Ellenberg sellenberg@rubyschofield.com 

Alan Michael Jones ajones@jonesturner.com, jgallagher@jonesturner.com 

Allen Ruby aruby@rubyschofield.com 

Glen W. Schofield gschofield@rubyschofield.com, bug@rubyschofield.com 

Gary R. Selvin gselvin@selvinwraith.com, 

Steven Donald Turner sturner@jonesturner.com, htornay@jonesturner.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 5:05-cv-00198-JW Document 81 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 3