Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD LYTEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANET SIMPSON, 

Defendant.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1937 JF (PVT)

INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE

ADDITIONAL DEPOSITIONS

On May 16, 2006, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Richard Lytel (“Lytel”) filed a Motion for

Leave to Take Additional Depositions and For Related Orders.1 Defendant/Counter-Claimant Janet

Simpson (“Simpson”) opposed the motion. Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the

court finds it appropriate to issue this interim order. Based on the moving, opposition and reply

papers submitted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in light of the limited time before the August 8, 2006

discovery cutoff, the parties shall promptly meet and confer with each other, and with the proposed

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 256 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ORDER, page 2

additional deponents, to schedule tentative dates and times for the depositions to occur in the event

the court grants Lytel’s motion in whole or in part. (Based on the papers submitted, the court is

tentatively inclined to grant the motion as to most or all of the additional deponents, with an

appropriate limitation on the duration of each additional deponent.) To the extent the parties cannot

agree on dates/times for the depositions that are agreeable to the parties and the deponents, the

parties shall file supplemental briefs no later than June 16, 2006, setting forth their scheduling needs

and any scheduling information they have obtained from the proposed deponents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with regard to non-party deponents, Lytel shall make a

diligent effort to schedule the depositions for dates agreeable to the deponents and Simpson. 

However, if no agreement can be reached, Lytel shall select the deposition dates and serve proper

subpoenas on the deponents no later than June 16, 2006. A copy of this order shall be served along

with each such subpoena. The subpoenas shall give each deponent at least 10 calendar days notice. 

In the event a deponent objects to the date selected for his or her deposition, he or she shall promptly

serve (by mail to counsel for the parties) and file with this court a motion for protective order, in

which case that deposition will be stayed pending the court’s ruling on the motion for protection. 

Any such motion for protection shall include what dates the deponent is available for deposition. 

Any such motion shall set the hearing in this court, before Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull, for

10:00 a.m. on the first Tuesday that is at least 7 calendar days (5 court days) after the motion is filed. 

Any opposition shall be served (by fax or overnight mail/courier) and filed at least 2 court days prior

to the hearing. If the deponent resides more than 50 miles from the court, he or she may request to

appear by telephone at the hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that none of the requested additional depositions shall go

forward absent either further order of this court granting Plaintiff’s motion as to such deposition, or

written agreement of both parties and the specific deponent.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent the parties can stipulate that a deponent will

not be called as a witness at trial, and that no representations will be made at trial regarding anything

the deponent did or did not see, hear, say, do, or otherwise witness, then the motion will be deemed

moot as to that deponent. (In her opposition, Simpson argues that Lytel is apparently attempting to

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 256 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ORDER, page 3

take the depositions “for the purpose of having witnesses testify that they did not witness anything.” 

If so, it should be possible for the parties to avoid many of the proposed depositions through

appropriate stipulations.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion remains on calendar for

10:00 a.m. on June 20, 2006. At that time the court will determine which of the additional

depositions will be allowed and the duration of those depositions, as well as the issue regarding

Simpson’s deposition.

Dated: 6/7/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 256 Filed 06/08/06 Page 3 of 3