Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04941/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04941-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

EMIL ALPERIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

VATICAN BANK, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-99-04941 MMC (EDL)

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

On January 27, 2006, Defendant Instituto per le Opera di Religione (IOR) filed a Motion for

Protective Order to vacate the date set for the continued deposition of Mr. Gowen, and a Motion to

Shorten Time to hear the Motion for Protective Order. Defendant Order of Friars Minor (OFM)

joined in IOR’s motions. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs’ counsel noticed Mr. Gowen’s

deposition for February 9, 2006 even though Plaintiffs’ counsel knew that Defendants’ counsel were

unavailable on that date. The record reveals that the parties exchanged e-mails about this issue, but

were unable to reach an agreement on a mutually convenient date for the deposition. Plaintiffs filed

an opposition to the Motion for Protective Order on February 1, 2006. OFM filed a responsive

declaration on February 2, 2006. In lieu of setting a hearing date for Defendants’ Motion for

Protective Order, the Court held a telephone conference on February 3, 2006. Windle Turley and

Jon Levy appeared for Plaintiffs. Jeffrey Lena appeared for IOR, and Tomislav Kuzmanovic and

Paul Vallone appeared for OFM. 

With the Court’s assistance, the parties were able to agree on March 8, 2006 as the date for

the continued deposition, subject to Mr. Gowen’s availability. In any event, Mr. Gowen’s

deposition shall be completed no later than March 15, 2006. The Court previously ordered Mr.

Case 3:99-cv-04941-MMC Document 260 Filed 02/03/06 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

Gowen’s deposition as a way to preserve his testimony because he is elderly and it is uncertain when

general discovery in this case will be opened. Although there is no indication at present of failing

health that would preclude Mr. Gowen’s further deposition, his age makes it important to complete

his deposition as soon as possible. His further deposition has been delayed in large part because of

the unavailability of defense counsel. Defense counsel may need to rearrange their non-trial

schedules if necessary to ensure timely completion of his deposition. If Mr. Gowen’s health

precludes his further deposition, a court could appropriately take into account the reason for the

delay in scheduling the deposition when deciding whether to permit use of the deposition in further

proceedings. 

During the telephone conference, Plaintiffs raised the issue of whether each party should pay

for the pages of the deposition transcript reflecting that party’s questioning. The parties are ordered

to meet and confer on this issue in an effort to reach a resolution without court intervention. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:99-cv-04941-MMC Document 260 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 2