Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00660/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00660-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

HONGWEI ZHANG,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv0660 DMS (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO HAVE

THE O’BRIEN DEPOSITION

CONDUCTED AT THE U. S.

COURTHOUSE

[DOC. NO. 96]

vs.

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion, filed on October 13, 2011, to have the deposition

of one of its employees, Jayne O’Brien, taken at the U. S. Courthouse. (Doc. No. 96). Plaintiff

filed a response in opposition the same day. (Doc. No. 97). Having considered the motion, the

response and the docket of proceedings in the case, the Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

Discussion

The parties have agreed that Plaintiff can take the deposition of Jayne O’Brien, an

employee of Defendant who supervised Plaintiff, on November 8, 2011, beginning at 9:00 a.m.

Defendants assert that the deposition should be taken at the U. S. Courthouse, a secure location,

due to its concerns regarding Plaintiff’s behavior. Defendants claim that Plaintiff has acted

erratically and in a threatening manner at various times throughout this litigation. (Doc. No. 96). 

Plaintiff, in a 16-page response in opposition which primarily addresses other discovery orders

- 1 - 10cv0660 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-00660-DMS-MDD Document 101 Filed 10/17/11 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

under review before the District Court and Plaintiff’s complaints regarding Defendants’ discovery

practices, claims that Defendants are merely seeking to deceive and to discredit Plaintiff. (Doc.

No. 97). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(B) provides that for good cause a court may issue

an order specifying terms, including time and place, for discovery. This Court, in a discovery order

under review, has determined that Plaintiff must submit to an Independent Medical Examination

regarding her claimed severe and ongoing emotional distress. (Doc. No. 62). On October 7, 2011,

the District Judge issued an order prohibiting Plaintiff from contacting chambers telephonically. 

(Doc. No. 92). Having the deposition occur in the courthouse does not discredit Plaintiff in any

way; all it does is provide some comfort to the deponent and counsel that matters cannot escalate

out of hand. This Court finds good cause to allow for the deposition to occur in a secure setting

within the U. S. Courthouse. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to have the deposition of Jayne O’Brien occur in the

U. S. Courthouse is GRANTED. The deposition shall take place on November 8, 2011, beginning

at 9:00 am, in the Jury Room associated with Courtroom D on the first floor of the U. S.

Courthouse at 940 Front Street, San Diego, California. This Order also will serve as permission

for the court reporter retained by Plaintiff for the deposition to bring audio and/or video equipment

into the Courthouse for the deposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: October 17, 2011

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 2 - 10cv0660 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-00660-DMS-MDD Document 101 Filed 10/17/11 Page 2 of 2