Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07611/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07611-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TIAN-RUI SI, MAO-TIN SUN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CSM INVESTMENT CORP., DBA

DARDA SEAFOOD RESTAURANT,

SHIH-KWEI CHEN & DOES 1 TO 10,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C- 06-7611 PVT

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION TO SHORTEN

TIME AND MOTION TO COMPEL

DEPOSITION

On July 22, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Chen

and a Motion to Shorten Time for the Motion to Compel. On July 20, 2007, Plaintiffs issued a

Deposition Notice for Defendant Chen, setting the date of the deposition for July 30, 2007. 

Plaintiffs have moved to compel the deposition based on the assertion of defense counsel, Ms.

Shao, that she will not produce Defendant Chen for deposition until after she completes the

depositions of Plaintiffs Si and Sun.

Under Rule 37, a Motion to compel a deposition may only be made if a party fails to

appear for a deposition after properly being served with a deposition notice. At this time,

Defendant Chen has not failed to appear because the deposition date is still in the future. 

Accordingly, the motion to compel and the motion to shorten time are both premature and must

Case 5:06-cv-07611-PVT Document 56 Filed 07/25/07 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER, page 2

be denied without prejudice. 

In order to avoid future motion practice, the Court informs Defendants and their counsel

that any failure to appear for a properly noticed deposition will result in sanctions. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37. If Defendants feel that they have a proper basis for moving for a protective order to

prevent the deposition, they must make that motion prior to the date set for the deposition. 

Defendants are specifically informed that their desire to complete the depositions of Plaintiffs

prior to producing Defendant Chen is not a proper basis for failing to comply with the

Deposition Notice. Defendants are also informed that leave of court is required to depose any

party for more than seven hours. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2). Accordingly, if Defendants wish time

in excess of seven hours for Plaintiff Sun, they must first receive leave of court or a stipulation

from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed that Rule 30 requires the court to allow additional time

when required for a fair examination of the deponent. Finally, all parties are informed that these

matters ought to be worked out by the parties without need of intervention of court and the Court

expects all parties to work harder to reach reasonable compromises of their differences.

For the foregoing reasons It Is Hereby Ordered that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

Deposition and Motion to Shorten time are denied without prejudice as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2007

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-07611-PVT Document 56 Filed 07/25/07 Page 2 of 2