Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01208/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01208-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

 In a conference call with counsel on August 18, 2005, the court indicated that if either

party sought further resolution of the discovery dispute discussed telephonically on that date, that

party should file a letter brief not exceeding two pages.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVIER RAIGOZA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1208 GEB KJM

vs.

ARAMARK CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

The discovery cut-off in this action is fast approaching. Now, in a flurry of letter

briefs,1 both sides accuse opposing counsel of unprofessional behavior. This entire tempest

comes about because the parties did not conduct discovery in a timely manner. The court

declines to order depositions of persons not parties to the action who have not been afforded a

timely opportunity to be heard on whether their depositions should be compelled. Defendant

Jacob Vervalin appeared for his deposition and plaintiff’s counsel apparently declined to depose

defendant at that time. The court will thus not compel the deposition of this defendant. With

respect to duly noticed depositions of defendants Michael Brodeur and Bill Vervalin, the

depositions shall be completed no later than the cut-off of discovery. The court finds no basis for

Case 2:04-cv-01208-GEB -KJM Document 60 Filed 08/25/05 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

2

the contempt order sought by defendants nor for the sanctions sought by either side. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel depositions and for sanctions and contempt is

denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part. The depositions of defendants

Michael Brodeur and Bill Vervalin shall take place no later than August 26, 2005. 

3. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions and for protective order are denied.

4. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied without prejudice to its renewal as an in

limine motion at the time of trial.

DATED: August 25, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

006 raigoza.disc

Case 2:04-cv-01208-GEB -KJM Document 60 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 2