Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01629/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01629-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL WHITTALL,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-05-1629 WBS GGH

vs.

HENRY SCHEIN, INC., et al.,

Defendants. MEMORANDUM

 /

On April 6, 2006, the parties telephoned chambers with a discovery dispute

concerning plaintiff’s request to take the deposition of witness Lorie Dietz. Plaintiff sought to

take this deposition on Monday, April 10, 2006, in Connecticut since plaintiff’s counsel was

already on the east coast conducting other depositions. Defendants objected to the lack of notice

and time to prepare for a deposition on such short notice. After considering the parties’

arguments, the court issued an order on the phone which is memorialized herein.

Defendants’ points have merit. Reasonable notice for a deposition is usually ten

days. Here, plaintiff’s counsel informed defense counsel on April 5, 2006 that he wished to take

Dietz’ deposition on April 10. No subpoena or deposition notice was issued. Dietz’s address

and phone number was easy to locate on Yahoo’s People Search, as demonstrated during the

phone conference, and plaintiff’s counsel should have subpoenaed her earlier, regardless of the

Case 2:05-cv-01629-WBS-GGH Document 33 Filed 04/10/06 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

2

issue of her lack of cooperation. Furthermore, adequate preparation time is necessary, especially

in light of other depositions scheduled in this case.

Nevertheless, on balance, plaintiff’s position prevails. The expense for plaintiff’s

counsel to return to the east coast at a later time is significant. Furthermore, People Search

indicated other individuals with the name Dietz in Connecticut. Plaintiff’s counsel did have a

duty to confirm he had the correct Dietz before subpoenaing her. He indicated that his phone

calls to her went unreturned until this court’s order of March 30, 2006 issued. Defense counsel’s

concerns with preparation time for this deposition is only partially warranted as this witness’

potential testimony is not complicated. She is not an expert and this is an employment case, the

theme of which is already well known to both sides. Documents necessary for this deposition

can be easily obtained by defense counsel who it is assumed has access to the company’s

documents. The instant deposition may be helpful to the upcoming Voluntary Dispute

Resolution Program, set for April 24, 2006. In sum, the overall interest is in favor of fleshing out

the facts of the case rather than the convenience of the parties.

Accordingly, as directed at the April 6, 2006 phone conference, IT IS ORDERED

that plaintiff is permitted to depose Lorie Dietz on Monday, April 10, 2006, in Hartford,

Connecticut. Plaintiff’s direct examination is limited to three hours. The defense has unlimited

time for cross examination – within reasonable limits.

DATED: 4/10/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Whittall1629.tel

Case 2:05-cv-01629-WBS-GGH Document 33 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2