Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03186/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03186-12/pdf.json

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

---

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 did not file his opposition until September 4, 2007, several days after the August 28, 2007 deadline set

by the local rules. On September 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to enlarge time (Docket No. 81) to submit the

opposition, explaining that the late filing was due to a clerical error in calculating the due date. The Court finds that no

prejudice to Defendants will result by permitting the late filing, as Defendants have already filed a reply to the tardy

opposition. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to enlarge time. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM P. WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C06-03186 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR LEAVE

TO RESUME DEPOSITION

Before the Court is Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s

Motion To Strike Portions Of The Deposition Testimony Of Joseph Glenmullen M.D. and For Leave

To Resume Dr. Glenmullen’s Deposition. (Docket No. 66.) Plaintiffs oppose the Motion.1

 The

Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Motion as set forth below.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for leave to resume Dr. Glenmullen’s deposition

for an additional three-and-a-half (3.5) hours. The Court is persuaded that, because of the

complexity of Dr. Glenmullen’s causation opinions, additional time beyond the presumptive sevenhour limit is “needed to fairly examine” this deponent. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

30(d)(2).

The Court DENIES Defendant’s request to strike certain portions of Dr. Glenmullen’s

Case 3:06-cv-03186-MJJ Document 132 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 2
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

deposition testimony as nonresponsive. Defendant has identified no legal basis for such relief, and

such a request is premature. The Court will reserve determinations as to the relevance and

admissibility of Dr. Glenmullen’s testimony until such time that a party seeks to introduce such

testimony for a substantive purpose and an appropriate objection is timely made. 

The Court also DENIES Defendant’s request that the Court instruct Dr. Glenmullen to

provide responsive answers and/or that the Court admonish Plaintiffs’ counsel to refrain from

speaking objections. The record does not support such relief. The Court notes, however, that should

any party or witness act in a manner inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at the

resumed deposition, the Court may consider appropriate relief or sanctions at a future date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03186-MJJ Document 132 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 2