Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01372/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01372-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLIED PROFESSIONAL TRAINING,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY

DISPUTE - DEPOSITION OF JANIS

AYDELOTT

[DOC. NO. 121]

vs.

MIRA COSTA COLLEGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is another Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute filed on

January 3, 2012. (Doc. No. 121). Plaintiff claims to have noticed the deposition of Janis Aydelott,

a former Defendant in this case, and to have served a deposition subpoena upon her counsel for a

deposition to occur on December 22, 2011. Counsel for Ms. Aydelott also represents all

defendants in this case. Ms. Aydelott and counsel did not appear. Counsel for Ms. Aydelott

asserts that the deposition notice was faulty and that he was not authorized to accept service of the

subpoena by Ms. Aydelott. According to Plaintiff, Ms. Aydelott’s counsel accepted service of a

subpoena duces tecum issued to Ms. Aydelott in September 2011. Plaintiff asserts that the instant

subpoena was served upon counsel on November 22, 2011, and counsel did not advise that he was

without authority to accept it until counsel filed a motion for a protective order regarding a number

of depositions on December 9, 2011. 

- 1 - 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 125 Filed 01/09/12 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

Ms. Aydelott’s counsel is correct that the notice of deposition sent to the Defendants was

faulty. It noticed Ms. Aydelott’s deposition under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). Rule 30(b)(6), however,

is the provision allowing for an entity to be named in a deposition notice or subpoena and requiring

the entity to identify one or more persons to testify on behalf of the entity in identified topic areas. 

This Rule is not amenable to noticing individuals, only entities. Nevertheless, the notice to the

Defendants did not require Defendants to do anything except to be on notice that the deposition

was going to occur if they wanted to attend. The faulty notice here would not stand as a reason for

Ms. Aydelott not to appear had she been properly served with a deposition subpoena.

Based upon the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, it appears that Ms. Aydelott authorized

her attorney to accept service of the subpoena duces tecum served in September. Ms. Aydelott’s

counsel’s declaration filed in this case does not address the September subpoena and is not clear

regarding whether or when Ms. Aydelott granted and withdrew permission for counsel to accept

service of subpoenas in connection with this litigation. The lack of clarity may be instructive.

Attorneys have a duty, while zealously representing their client’s interests within the

bounds of the law, to cooperate in the management of federal civil lawsuits. This case would not

be selected as an example of adversarial cooperation. The Court is of the firm view that there is an

unacceptable amount of gamesmanship being played here.

The Court will reopen the discovery period in this case, which otherwise has closed, to

allow Plaintiff a reasonable time to obtain and serve a Rule 45 deposition upon Ms. Aydelott in the

Northern District of California and to take her oral deposition. For what it is worth, the Court

encourages counsel to resolve this particular dispute and have the deposition go forward without

further court intervention here or in the Northern District. Unless otherwise agreed, or upon

further order of the Court, this deposition is to be completed on or before January 31, 2012. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: January 9, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 125 Filed 01/09/12 Page 2 of 2