Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02351/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02351-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

1

 BWI is an Arizona nonprofit membership organization which allows members,

consisting of individually owned and operated motels and hotels, to use its registered marks. 

*E-filed 9/13/07*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADIBA MAHROOM and MAJID MAHROOM, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

BEST WESTERN INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Defendant. /

Case No. C07-02351 HRL

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' AND

DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDERS

Re: Docket No. 57 and 68

Plaintiffs sue challenging Best Western International, Inc.'s ("BWI") decision to

terminate the Mahrooms' membership with the organization.1 Both parties move for protective

orders on depositions. This court has broad authority to issue protective orders related to

discovery. Gray v. Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 39 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

BACKGROUND

After the complaint was served, BWI moved for dismissal and/or change of venue and,

alternatively, sought a temporary restraining order. On July 6, Judge Fogel denied both

motions. However, at that hearing, the court suggested that the parties conduct limited

discovery on an expedited basis, file supplemental briefs, and return for a preliminary injunction

hearing on August 31. After the motions at issue here were set for hearing on September 11,

Judge Fogel continued the preliminary injunction hearing to October 12. 

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 95 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 Concurrently filed with this motion was a motion to shorten time. Filed only five

business days before the contested deposition, this court sought (and received) expedited

supplemental briefing on the timing issue. The motion to shorten time was denied.

3 The presumption that depositions of defendant corporate designees should be taken

at the principal place of business can be overcome depending on a number of factors. 

Moore's Federal Practice, 3d. § 30.20[1][b]. For example, a court may consider: (1) the

location of counsel in the forum district, (2) the number of representatives a party seeks to

depose, (3) the likelihood of significant discovery disputes, (4) whether the parties to be

deposed often engage in travel for business purposes, and (5) the equities with regard to the

nature of the claim and the parties' relationship. Id. 

2

I) BWI's Motion

BWI moved for a protective order relating to Plaintiffs noticed 30(b)(6) deposition.2

Defendant objected to the location of the deposition (San Jose, California) because it was not at

BWI’s headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona. BWI also objected to the deposition date because it

had previously notified Plaintiffs of a scheduling conflict with that day. Although Defendant

did not comply with the deposition as noticed, eventually all three corporate representatives

were produced in San Jose. Even with its motion seemingly mooted, BWI continued to seek

costs for producing these deponents in San Jose and a protective order requiring future

depositions noticed by Plaintiffs to be held in Phoenix. 

As the 30(b)(6) depositions are completed, the motion as it pertains to scheduling is

DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant's request for attorney's fees and costs, considered here

although not properly raised, is DENIED. Finally, with respect to an order on the location of

future depositions, the court finds that such a determination is fact-intensive and the analysis

changes depending on the person being deposed.3 Because this court will not issue an order in

a vacuum, the motion as it pertains to location is DENIED.

II) Mahroom's Motion

Plaintiffs moved for a protective order, seeking to preclude BWI from conducting

depositions of the Mahrooms and members of the Mahroom family until after the Rule 30(b)(6)

depositions were completed. Citing no relevant caselaw, Plaintiffs argued that "it would be

manifestly unfair to permit Best Western to thumb its nose at plaintiffs' [Rule 30(b)(6)]

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 95 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 4
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

4

 A secondary dispute involving Plaintiffs' delay in producing documents was brought

to the court's attention at the hearing. A ruling on that dispute is currently unnecessary

because Plaintiffs' counsel agreed on the record to produce the documents by September 17. 

3

deposition notice ... yet go forward with depositions of its own." Defendant asserted that there

was no good faith basis for filing this motion and requested, in its opposition, fees and costs.

Because no rule requires BWI to produce all of its deponents before it may take

Plaintiffs’ depositions, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. Further, Defendant's request for

attorney's fees and costs, which was not properly presented to the court, is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

Given the limited time available before the preliminary injunction hearing and the

parties' apparent difficulties in working together, the remaining depositions are ORDERED to

be taken according to the following schedule: 

- Dianne Mahroom, September 19, 2007 in Palo Alto, California

- Roxanne Mahroom, September 20, 2007 (morning) in Palo Alto, California

- Majid Mahroom, September 20, 2007 (afternoon) in California

- Adiba Mahroom, September 21, 2007 in California

- Eric Cogdill, October 5, 2007 in Fresno, California

Much of this dispute could have been avoided if it were not for Plaintiffs' counsel's lack

of diligence in responding to and communicating with defense counsel. If trivial or easily

avoided discovery disputes continue, the court will consider the appointment of a discovery

master at the expense of either or both parties.4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/13/07

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 95 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO:

Antony E. Buchignani antony.buchignani@dlapiper.com, laverne.patane@dlapiper.com 

John C. Gorman jgorman@gormanmiller.com 

Jeffrey Mark Hamerling jeffrey.hamerling@dlapiper.com 

Allison L. Harvey allison.harvey@dlapiper.com 

Rachel Elizabeth King Lowe rachel.lowe@dlapiper.com 

Cynthia A. Ricketts cindy.ricketts@dlapiper.com, kathy.sieckman@dlapiper.com 

Charles Joseph Stiegler cstiegler@gormanmiller.com 

Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed

up for e-filing.

Dated: 9/13/07

 /s/ KRO 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:07-cv-02351-JF Document 95 Filed 09/13/07 Page 4 of 4