Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARELL FRANKLIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALLSTATE CORP., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-1909 MMC (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION

OF RICHARD CANATELLA; AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS

(Docket Nos. 156, 168)

The motions came on for hearing on February 27, 2008. Having considered the papers and

argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby orders as follows.

As to the motion to compel, the parties agree that the matter of deposing opposing counsel is

governed by Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Superior Court, 198 Cal.App.3d 1487 (1988). The proponent

of the deposition of opposing counsel must demonstrate satisfaction of a three part test which

includes showing that no other means exists to obtain the information, the information is crucial to

preparation of the case and the information sought is relevant and non-privileged. Id. at 1494-95. 

The burden is on the proponent of such a deposition to overcome at least the first two prongs of the

Spectra-Physics test, if not the entire presumptive privilege. Nemirofsky v. Kim, 523 F. Supp. 2d

998, (N.D. Cal. 2007). There are substantial policy reason for so allocating the burden given the

potentially disruptive nature of such depositions and the risk of tactical abuse.

In this case, only in the context of moving to compel, did Defendants provide in any

meaningful detail the nature of the information they seek from opposing counsel via his deposition. 

The matters on which they seek to depose Mr. Canatella (his communications with third parties, his

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 186 Filed 02/29/08 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

observations about the demeanor of Mr. Schwartz, etc.) appear not to implicate privilege

communications between Mr. Canatella and his client. Plaintiffs appear to concede that these

matters may be inquired into in a deposition consistent with Spectra-Physics.

The motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. The parties are hereby ordered to

meet and confer. In that process, Defendants shall describe the subject areas of the proposed

depositions and the parties shall reach an understanding as to the propriety of those subjects under

Spectra-Physics. Mr. Canatella’s deposition, so limited, shall proceed on March 3, 2008.

As to Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, the Court finds that Defendants did not adequately

meet and confer in an attempt to obviate this dispute. They contend that Mr. Canatella’s demand

that the subject matter for his deposition be discussed and stipulated to in advance was unreasonable

and refused to provide any such detail, other than to state in general terms that the deposition would

inquire into his “involvement in the underlying fire loss claim.” Defendants refused to provide the

more specific topics later disclosed in their motion to compel herein. Had those topics been

disclosed in the meet and confer, Defendants would have satisfied any burden they may have had

under Spectra-Physics and Nemirofsky, at least on a prima facie basis, of establishing their right to

take opposing counsel’s deposition. Instead, they chose to rest on their position that they had no

such obligation.

Perhaps more importantly, regardless of which party has the evidentiary burden of proving

the privilege, under Local Rule 37-1(a), if counsel fails to comply with the duty to meet and confer

prior to bringing a motion to compel, “the Judge may impose an appropriate sanction, which many

include an order requiring payment of all reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by

the refusal or failure to confer.” In this case, considerable expense might have been saved had

defense counsel provided the same information to Mr. Canatella during the met and confer as they

eventually did in the motion to compel. Given the obvious potential problems engendered in

deposing opposing counsel and the need of the parties to evaluate the propriety of such a deposition

under the Spectra-Physics factors, it was not entirely unreasonable for Mr. Canatella to insist on

disclosure of those subjects prior to agreeing to go forward with his deposition. Absent that

information, the parties could not meaningfully discuss the propriety of the deposition and its limits. 

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 186 Filed 02/29/08 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

This dispute could have been resolved much more efficiently, and possibly without the resort to a

formal motion, had defense counsel provided the proposed subject matters curing the meet and

confer. In short, defense counsel did not fulfill their obligations under Rule 37(a)(2)(A) and Local

Rule 37-1(a).

On the other hand, some blame for the needless proliferation of papers on this relatively

simply matter can be placed on Mr. Canatella. He could have affirmatively indicated a greater

willingness to give a deposition under certain conditions, particularly since he knew full well that

there were many matters pertaining to his involvement in the transaction that did not implicate

attorney-client privileges. Rather than trying to be constructive, he insisted on a stipulation,

choosing to draw his line in the sand as well. More importantly, Mr. Canatella spent considerable

time opposing the motion to compel when it should have been clear from Defendants’ moving

papers that a substantial portion of information Defendants sought from Mr. Canatella’s deposition

was not privileged. The extensive opposition to the motion was not attorney time well spent.

Having reviewed the papers and the fees incurred, and having concluded the primary, but not

entire, blame for the failure of the meet and confer and resolve this dispute efficiently rests with

Defendants, the Court hereby grants Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions and awards Plaintiffs $2,500 for

fees and costs incurred pursuant to Local Rule 37-1(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 156 and 168.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 186 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 3