Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00225/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00225-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1131 E.R.I.S.A. Collection of Delinquent Trust Funds

---

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

JAMES SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-0225 CW (MEJ)

ORDER PERMITTING LIMITED

DEPOSITION OF LESLIE

SCHUPPAN

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery dispute letter, filed February 17, 2006. 

Doc #41. In the parties' letter, plaintiff James Simpson ("Plaintiff") requests a court order permitting

the deposition of non-party Leslie Schuppan beyond the January 31, 2006 discovery cut-off. In this

case, Plaintiff alleges that defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ("Defendant") adopted an

amended leave of absence policy, in whole or in part, to terminate employees for the purpose of

preventing them from receiving medical and other benefits. In approximately November 2002,

Defendant hired non-party Watson Wyatt Worldwide ("Watson") as a consultant for the redesign of

its disability plans. Plaintiff seeks to depose Ms. Schuppan, the author of handwritten notes dated

November 1, 2002, that record a conversation between Ms. Schuppan and Harriet Guberman, who

was Defendant's Senior Director of Benefits. Plaintiff seeks permission to take a limited telephone

deposition of Ms. Schuppan related to the creation and recording of the handwritten notes.

Plaintiff argues that, despite diligent efforts to obtain documents from Watson well in

Case 4:05-cv-00225-CW Document 42 Filed 02/22/06 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

advance of the discovery cut-off of January 31. 2006, he did not receive the requested documents

until November 23, 2005. In an effort to avoid taking the deposition of Ms. Schuppan unless

necessary, Plaintiff's counsel states that they inquired about the November 1, 2002 conversation at

the deposition of Ms. Guberman on January 11, 2006. Although Ms. Guberman testified regarding

the issues mentioned in the handwritten notes, Plaintiff argues that she failed to testify completely as

to the nature of the handwritten notes. Plaintiff seeks to depose Ms. Schuppan to determine the

nature and context of the handwritten notes, including whether the statements were motivating

factors for the disability re-design.

In response, Defendant argues that Plaintiff had ample opportunity to take Ms. Schuppan's

deposition before the close of discovery. Specifically, Defendant states that Plaintiff's counsel used

many of the Watson documents as exhibits during a deposition they took on November 29, 2005. As

those exhibits disclosed Ms. Schuppan's name numerous times, Plaintiff could have contacted

Watson at the end of November 2005 when it reviewed the documents instead of waiting until early

January 2006. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff has failed to show a legitimate need to take

Ms. Schuppan's deposition. Because Ms. Guberman testified that the statements in the handwritten

notes were true statements, Defendant contends that the deposition of Ms. Schuppan can add very

little to this case. Finally, Defendant argues that the contents of the handwritten notes are irrelevant

because Plaintiff has failed to show any connection between Watson's role in the redesign of

Defendant's disability policies and its decision to amend its leave of absence policy.

Upon review of the parties' arguments, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff had

ample opportunity to determine the author of the handwritten notes and take Ms. Schuppan's

deposition prior to the discovery cut-off. Plaintiff received the documents over two months prior to

the cut-off date and, given this time lapse, the Court need not permit her deposition. However, the

Court prefers to decide cases on the merits rather than procedural issues and thus finds good cause to

permit Plaintiff to inquire into potentially relevant evidence for his case. Accordingly, the Court

hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's request to take the telephonic deposition of Leslie Schuppan for the

limited purpose of determining the nature and context of the handwritten notes, including whether

Case 4:05-cv-00225-CW Document 42 Filed 02/22/06 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 statements were motivating factors for the disability re-design. However, this deposition may

only take place if Plaintiff has not already taken ten depositions; this Order shall not constitute

permission for Plaintiff to take more than ten depositions. Further, given that this Order extends a

case management deadline, the parties shall file a stipulation before Judge Wilken to extend time

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00225-CW Document 42 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 3