Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BOWOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CHEVRON CORP., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 99-02506 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

Now before the Court is defendants’ motion to compel further deposition testimony from Dr.

James Ipser. Having carefully considered the papers submitted, and for good cause appearing, the Court

hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion.

DISCUSSION

One of the key disputes in this case concerns the events that occurred on an oil drilling platform

in the Niger River Delta and an attached construction barge. To assist the jury in understanding their

version of the events that transpired, defendants retained an expert witness to construct a threedimensional model of the barge. In response, plaintiffs retained Dr. Ipser as a rebuttal witness. They

intend to use Ipser to testify that “the method used to assess the accuracy of the plan drawings from

which the model was constructed was scientifically flawed,” meaning that “the generated model cannot

be used with any confidence in many situations.” Teukolsky Decl., Exh. 1. The day before his

deposition, Ipser prepared four pages of mathematical calculations, which he produced at his deposition.

Defendants claim that they did not have an adequate opportunity to depose Ipser regarding those

calculations, and seek to compel further deposition testimony from him on that subject.

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1209 Filed 08/23/06 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

The Court agrees with defendants that Ipser’s mathematical calculations are beyond the ken of

most lawyers, and that their late production effectively prevented defendants from having any

meaningful ability to question Ipser about them. Thus, the Court believes that defendants should have

the opportunity to reopen Ipser’s deposition. Given that Ipser has already sat for a full-day deposition,

however, defendants’ opportunity shall be limited to one-hour of questioning.

In addition, the Court agrees with plaintiffs that the limited amount of additional testimony

defendants seek from Ipser is not worth the expense associated with flying him to San Francisco from

Florida. Accordingly, Ipser’s deposition shall be conducted by telephone. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’

motion to compel (Docket Nos. 1140, 1149, 1155). Defendants may reopen the deposition of Dr. Ipser

for one hour to question him about the four pages of mathematical calculations he produced as his first

deposition. The reopened deposition shall take place by telephone.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1209 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2