Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03169/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03169-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUNTER LANDERS, an individual residing

in California,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CURRAN & CONNORS INC., a Delaware

corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03169 WHA

ORDER RE DISCOVERY

MOTIONS AND

VACATING TELEPHONIC

HEARING

Ordinarily, a witness has a right to be deposed where he or she resides. This motion

poses an interesting wrinkle, however. The New York witness wants to be deposed here in

California where his company was sued. He is the CEO. The reason is that, given plaintiff’s

choice of forum, the company had to hire lawyers in this district. The witness plans to be here

in the district anyway and wishes to be deposed here, so as to avoid having to pay for California

counsel to travel to New York. The deposing counsel (plaintiff’s counsel) is located in

Philadelphia. For his own convenience, he has noticed the deposition where the deponent lives. 

Thus, the wrinkle is that the party protected by the place-of-residence rule does not want

the protection of the rule. 

Both sides have made legitimate points. The Court has discretion in such matters. The

witness has agreed to travel to this district for virtually any day in January or February with

reasonable notice. Thus, he is not trying to evade a timely deposition. Given that this will save,

Case 3:05-cv-03169-WHA Document 54 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 3
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

overall, some expense (since the deposition can be combined with business), the Court will

allow it, even through it means that the deposition expense will be greater for plaintiff. It is

obvious that plaintiff chose California as a forum given its hostility to the type of restrictive

covenant at issue in this action. It is not unfair to require plaintiff’s counsel to take the

deposition in the district he himself selected. 

Therefore, the deposition of Hank Morris will go forward at 8:00 a.m. on January 23,

2006, in this district at defense counsel’s offices unless the parties expressly agree otherwise

well before, all parties to absorb their own travel expenses. If any bombshells emerge during

the examination, then counsel may submit that part of the transcript on an expedited and

supplemental basis to oppose the motion now set for February 2, 2006. If Mr. Morris declines

to appear on the 23rd as ordered, absent express agreement on an alternative date, then the

deposition will go forward in New York the following week. 

As for the Florida witness, Mr. Greenberg, the deposition will go forward at 8:00 a.m.

on January 24, 2006, in this district at defense counsel’s office unless the parties, well before,

agree expressly to a different time and place. If Mr. Greenberg declines to so appear on the

24th, then the deposition may be noticed for the following week in New York, where he works

at least part of the time. 

The separate motion to stay discovery pending the summary judgment motion is

DENIED except that defendant is relieved from identifying or revealing anything it genuinely

and in good faith contends is a trade secret. This subject will be opened only if necessary and

only upon a specific showing by plaintiff for a need to know, to be made by formal motion to be

heard in person and to be briefed on a 35-day track. Meanwhile, defendant will be barred from

relying on any trade secrets that defendant fails to identify in response to any valid and

reasonable request, i.e., defendant cannot have it both ways: relying on alleged secrets it

refuses to disclose. The purpose of this stay is to avoid discovery on a sensitive topic that may

prove unnecessary if the case resolves in the interim. 

Case 3:05-cv-03169-WHA Document 54 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

The telephone conference set for Wednesday, January 11, 2006. at 2:00 p.m. is hereby

VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2006. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03169-WHA Document 54 Filed 01/10/06 Page 3 of 3