Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01065/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01065-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332pr Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE F. BICKOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants. 

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:14-CV-01065-BEN

(WVG)

ORDER ON EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER

TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION

SUBPOENAS AS TO REMY

BICKOFF AND JAIME

STEWARD

(Doc. No. 27)

I. BACKGROUND

On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Ex Parte Application for an Order to Quash the

Deposition Subpoenas as to Remy Bickoff and Jaime Steward (“Plaintiff’s Application”). 

(Doc. No. 27.) On March 18, 2015, this Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Ex Parte

Application without prejudice to Defendant. (Doc. No. 28.) Due to the urgency of the

matter, the Court made its decision without hearing from Defendant. (Id. at 4.) On March

19, 2015, Defendant filed the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application. (Doc. No. 29.) 

On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Reply in support of his Ex Parte Application. (Doc.

Nos. 30–31.) This Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Application on March 31, 2015, at

2:00 p.m. (“Hearing”). At its conclusion, this Court issued an oral ruling whose particulars

are memorialized in this order. 

1 14CV1065

Case 3:14-cv-01065-BEN-WVG Document 34 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 3
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

II. RULING

Having reviewed the Parties’ written and oral arguments, this Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s Application. The Court believes Defendant’s proposed deponents–Mr. Remy

Bickoff and Ms. Jaime Steward (“Deponents”)–may possess relevant and personal

knowledge of facts crucial to this litigation. Due to this reasonable possibility, however

minute it may seem to Plaintiff’s counsel, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)

subject both to examination by means of a variety of discovery tools, including the “most

potent and searching” one: depositions. Alexander Holtzoff, Instruments of Discovery Under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 41 MICH. L. REV. 205, 206 (1942); FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a)

(“A party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of

court except as provided in Rule 30(a)(2).” (emphasis added)).1/

 Admittedly, these

depositions were noticed at the eleventh hour. Nonetheless, but for Plaintiff’s Application,

both depositions would have been (barely) finished prior to the fact discovery deadline of

March 27, 2015. However, due to this deadline’s expiration, this Court expects the Parties

to adhere to a strict and tight schedule in the days ahead. Thus, within one week, the Parties

are to meet and confer regarding the scheduling of these depositions. These two persons’

depositions must be both conducted and concluded on or before April 7, 2015. In addition,

this Court reminds Defendant’s counsel that it expects him (and any colleagues and

successors) to confine his questioning to those few areas of inquiry expressly delimitated

during the Hearing’s course. Failure by either side or its counsel to adhere precisely to the

word and spirit of this order may lead to sanctions’ swift imposition. In contrast, if the

Parties legitimately dispute the applicability of the attorney-client and marital privileges

during these depositions, Parties’ counsel must jointly and immediately contact this Court.

Thereafter, if it deems it necessary, this Court may order further briefing on the extent and

the bearing of the three relevant privileges. Finally, although the fact discovery deadline has

since passed, in light of both the Parties’ amicable accord and the Defendant’s conceded

1/

 As the Rules require, these depositions of non-party witnesses were noticed by subpoenas’ use.

See, e.g., FED. R. CIV. P. 30(a); Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 577 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2009).

2 14CV1065

Case 3:14-cv-01065-BEN-WVG Document 34 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 3
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

blame, this Court will also allow Plaintiff to conduct the depositions of Mr. Gangelhoff and

Ms. Otten, Defendant’s witnesses, presently scheduled for April 2015 and to which the

Parties have previously agreed.

III. FURTHER ADMONITION

Even so, the Court hastens to issue a simple warning. Deadlines expressly established

by a court order are not to be lightly regarded, subject to modification at parties’ whims. 

Instead, they represent definite signposts that no party, even with the other’s consent and the

best of intentions, may circumvent without first obtaining judicial permission. Otherwise,

the purpose that has long animated the Rules–“to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

determination of every action and proceeding,” FED. R. CIV. P. 1–would be endangered,

predictability critical for orderly adjudication possibly sacrificed, and needless chaos

potentially engendered. For these reasons, although this Court will permit Plaintiff to carry

out a final handful of depositions, it does so with the greatest reluctance. But, with this

warning now expressly promulgated, the Parties are on notice that no similar forbearance

will again be shown. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2015

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

3 14CV1065

Case 3:14-cv-01065-BEN-WVG Document 34 Filed 04/01/15 Page 3 of 3