Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00047/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-00047-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

*E-filed 11/7/06*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GRACIELA ZAMORA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

D'ARRIGO BROTHER COMPANY OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. /

Case No. C04-00047 JW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

COMPEL

Re: Docket No. 115

This is a sex discrimination class action. Plaintiffs now seek to compel defendant to

comply with their Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice related to the computer-readable

personnel data produced by defendant.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege that defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful sex

discrimination in refusing to promote or assign women to supervisory positions or positions

requiring the operation of machinery. Plaintiffs plan to present as evidence at trial an expert

statistical analysis and report. They state that this report will be based primarily on computerreadable personnel data provided by defendant to plaintiffs. This data pertains to female and

male employees and forepersons over an approximately five year period. In April 2006, 

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 135 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 5
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 Defendant produced a 30(b)(6) witness on July 20, 2004. 

2

defendant produced electronic data in response to a document request. Plaintiffs' electronic data

consultant apparently found several problems with the data, including inconsistencies,

incompleteness, and undecipherable codes. In August 2006, plaintiffs served defendant with a

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) notice of deposition seeking the company representative most

knowledgeable about the data and the system that produced it. Defendant objects to producing

a 30(b)(6) representative on two grounds: (1) plaintiffs failed to seek leave of court for a

second1

 30(b)(6) deposition, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2); (2) plaintiffs have not

established good cause for a second 30(b)(6) deposition consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 

Plaintiffs move to compel participation. Plaintiffs argue they need to conduct a second 30(b)(6)

deposition because the depositions are on different subjects, involve different corporate

representatives, and the proposed computer data deposition could not have been taken in 2004

because defendant did not produce its data until 2006.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party must obtain leave of court to depose any person that has already been deposed

in a case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(B) (“A party must obtain leave of court, which shall be

granted to the extent consistent with the principles stated in Rule 26(b)(2), if...without the

written stipulation of the parties...the person to be examined already has been deposed in the

case.”)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) indicates that leave should be granted unless:

(i) the [second deposition] sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is

obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less

expensive; 

(ii) the party seeking [the second deposition] has had ample opportunity by discovery in

the action to obtain the information sought; or 

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed [second deposition] outweighs its likely

benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties'

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 135 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 5
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

resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of

the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.

DISCUSSION

The court construes plaintiffs' motion as a request for leave to conduct a second Rule

30(b)(6) deposition, and proceeds to analyze the applicability of the Rule 26(b)(2) criteria. 

First, the discovery sought is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, because the

2004 witness could not have answered questions about data produced in 2006. See Vincent v.

Mortman, 2006 WL 726680, at * 1 (D.Conn. March 17, 2006) (“courts frequently permit a

deposition to be reopened where...new information comes to light triggering questions that the

discovering party would not have thought to ask at the first deposition”)(citations and quotation

marks omitted); Collins v. International Dairy Queen, 189 F.R.D. 496, 498 (M.D.Georgia 1999)

(second deposition allowed where it was likely to produce new information not obtainable in

the first deposition, and a second deposition had not been shown to be unduly burdensome or

expensive). The proposed second deposition will not cover the same issues as the first

deposition did, because it will be limited to questions arising from the employee electronic

computer data compiled and produced by defendant, as well as the system that generated such

data. Contrast with Innomed Labs, LLC v. Alza Corporation, 211 F.R.D. 237, 239-40

(S.D.N.Y. 2002). 

Defendant argues that a second deposition is not justified because plaintiffs have not

followed through on alternative means of obtaining the information. Defendant suggests that

plaintiffs should have employed some other form of discovery once they discovered the

problem with the computer data. However, defendant fails to explain why a 30(b)(6) deposition

might be an inappropriate or inefficient approach. No rule requires plaintiffs to pursue every

possible alternative before noticing a 30(b)(6) deposition. Rule 26(b)(2) pertains to information

“obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome and less

expensive.” But defendant has not shown that the 30(b)(6) approach is inconvenient,

burdensome, or expensive. Defendant does suggest that plaintiffs should have pursued more

informal means of answering their questions about data, such as further correspondence

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 135 Filed 11/07/06 Page 3 of 5
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

between counsel. However, letters from counsel are simply not equivalent to a formal, sworn

30(b)(6) deposition. The court concludes that Rule 26 does not bar a second deposition. 

The court ORDERS defendant to produce a corporate representative in compliance with

the August deposition notice, with a date set according to the convenience of the parties but no

later than ten days after the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/7/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 135 Filed 11/07/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY

MAILED TO:

James Gerard Bradtke jgbvjd@aol.com, gikm@aol.com 

Annabelle Cortez-Gonzalves agcortez@ufwmail.com, 

Geoffrey F. Gega ggega@cookbrown.com, ksakai@cookbrown.com 

Mario G. Martinez mariomtz@ufwmail.com 

Stephen G. Seliger SSeliger1@aol.com, 

Regina Silva rsilva@cookbrown.com, ksakai@cookbrown.com 

Paul Strauss pstrauss@lawmbg.com, ldavis@lawmbg.com; slegenza@lawmbg.com 

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

for e-filing.

Dated: 11/7/06 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:04-cv-00047-JW Document 135 Filed 11/07/06 Page 5 of 5