Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND DISCOVERY DESIGNATIONS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NATHALIE THUY VAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LANGUAGE LINE, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND 

DISCOVERY DESIGNATIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 334

Defendant Language Line, LLC (“Defendant”) has filed objections to Plaintiff Nathalie 

Thuy Van’s (“Plaintiff”) designation of depositions and discovery responses. ECF No. 334. 

Plaintiff has filed an opposition. ECF No. 340. After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering 

the record in the case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, 

the Court rules on Defendant’s objections as set forth below.

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s 

deposition and discovery designations are in the form of a procedurally improper motion. Plaintiff 

submitted her deposition and discovery designations pursuant to this Court’s standing order on 

jury trials. The Court’s standing order also provides that “[a]ny objections to the use of designated 

excerpts . . . shall be filed and served at least 10 days prior to the commencement of trial.” 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 373 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND DISCOVERY DESIGNATIONS

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

Defendant filed objections on July 13, 2016—11 days prior to the scheduled start of trial. Thus, 

Defendant’s objections were properly filed in accordance with the Court’s standing order. 

Accordingly, the Court rules on Defendant’s objections as follows:

A. Nathalie Thuy Van

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

All depo. testimony designated by 

Plaintiff

Sustained. Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony is not 

admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

32. Plaintiff is not using her testimony to impeach 

herself, and Plaintiff is available to testify at trial. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff may not introduce her deposition 

at trial. The Court notes that Plaintiff may testify about 

matters that were discussed in her deposition. 

However, Plaintiff can not introduce her deposition.

B. Michael Schmidt

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

All depo. testimony designated by 

Plaintiff

Overruled as to 8:1-4; 8:7-9:4; 10:15-11:2; 11:4-5; 

11:8-19; 12:11-23; 103:25-104:10; 104:14. 

Otherwise sustained.

C. Kimberly Schnader

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

All depo. testimony designated by 

Plaintiff

Overruled as to 6:5-9; 6:12-7:10:6; 10:14-24; 14:15-25; 

25:13-15; 25:23; 25:25-26:6; 26:9-27:14; 27:17-29:11; 

34:3-35:20; 43:16-24; 44:18-23. 

Otherwise sustained.

D. Barbara Sadler

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

All depo. testimony designated by 

Plaintiff

Overruled. 

E. Georgette Bloomer

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

4:5-19; 15:20-16:2 Overruled.

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 373 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND DISCOVERY DESIGNATIONS

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

F. Frank Perry

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

All depo. testimony designated by 

Plaintiff

Overruled as to 7:1-4; 7:7-14; 11:22-12:23; 118:4-6; 

118:10-119:12; 121:6-8; 122:2-5; 122:15-18; 124:11-

15; 124:17; 125:6-10; 125:13-126:11; 126:18-126:20; 

126:25-127:8; 127:10-11; 127:13-128:13; 130:3; 

130:5-8; 130:11-24; 131:2-3; 131:7-19; 132:4-17.

Otherwise sustained.

G. Written Discovery 

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, 

Set One

Overruled as to Defendant’s Responses to 

Interrogatories Nos. 1, 9, 11. 

Otherwise sustained.

Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s 

Interrogatories, Set One

Overruled.

Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s 

Request for Production, Set One

Sustained.

Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s 

Request for Production, Set Two

Overruled.

Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to 

Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set 

One

Sustained.

Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s 

Request for Production, Set Three

Overruled.

Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to 

Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set 

Three

Overruled.

Plaintiff’s Tenth Initial Disclosures and 

Computation of Damages

Sustained.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 373 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 3