Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01372/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01372-10/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 - RULE 30(b)(6)

DEPOSITION RE: TELESKILLS

FINANCIALS

[DOC. NO. 120]

vs.

MIRA COSTA COLLEGE, et al.,

Defendants.

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

3, 2012. (Doc. No. 120). According to Plaintiff, the deposition of Defendant Ameri-Skills was

duly noticed on November 22, 2011, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6), to appear and be deposed on

December 12, 2011. Defendant Ameri-Skills and its counsel failed to appear. Plaintiff is seeking

an order compelling Defendant to appear and for monetary sanctions. 

There is some history before this Court regarding this deposition. On Friday, December 9,

2011, Defendant sought a protective order precluding or limiting depositions scheduled during the

weeks of December 12 and 19, including the instant deposition. (Doc. No. 107). On Saturday,

December 10, 2011, the Court denied the motion as lacking good cause. (Doc. No. 108). Then, on

December 12, Defendant filed a motion seeking a telephonic conference with the Court and

provided additional reasons why the scheduled depositions should not go forward. (Doc. No. 109).

- 1 - 10cv1372 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01372-DMS-MDD Document 124 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

That motion was denied on December 13 as lacking good cause. (Doc. No. 110). 

Counsel for Defendant claims that he advised counsel for Plaintiff of his unavailability and

sought a continuance. Counsel’s declaration, however, does not state when counsel sought the

continuance. The declaration filed by counsel for Plaintiff states that he did offer to re-schedule

but that counsel for Defendant also was seeking an agreement to preclude or limit the scheduled

depositions. In its Memorandum regarding this motion, Defendant admits that it failed to appear

and argues that the deposition, in its view, is duplicative and unnecessary. Defendant also argues

against sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff knew that no one would appear. Plaintiff claims that

he was unaware, until the morning of December 12, that no one would appear that day. 

The Court finds Defendant Ameri-Skills must appear for this deposition at a mutually

agreeable date no later than January 27, 2012, absent agreement to the contrary between the parties. 

The Court declines to impose sanctions at this time.

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 124 Filed 01/09/12 Page 2 of 2