Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00068/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00068-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STORZ MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a 

California Corporation, and STORZ 

REALTY, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANDREW CAREY, an individual, and 

MARK WEINER, an individual,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-0068 TLN DB

ORDER

This action came before the undersigned on February 14, 2020, for hearing of defendants’ 

motion to compel. (ECF No. 116.) Attorney James Kachmar appeared on behalf of the 

defendants. No appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiffs. 

According to the parties’ joint statement, at the December 18, 2018 deposition of 

plaintiffs’ PMK James Pierini, plaintiffs’ attorney instructed Pierini not to answer several 

questions based on the objection that the question called for a legal conclusion. (ECF No. 122 at 

6-7.) “[A]ny time that a lawyer instructs a deponent not to answer a question except as 

authorized by Rules 30(d)(1) or 30(d)(3) the instruction is presumptively improper.” Boyd v. 

University of Maryland Medical System, 173 F.R.D. 143, 147 (D. Md. 1997). “Under the plain 

language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1), counsel may instruct a deponent not to answer only when 

Case 2:18-cv-00068-DJC-DB Document 125 Filed 02/18/20 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

2

necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation on evidence directed by the court, or to 

suspend a deposition in order to present a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3).” Resolution 

Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 262, 266 (10th Cir. 1995); see also Redwood v. Dobson, 476 F.3d 

462, 468 (7th Cir. 2007) (“A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary 

to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation directed by the court, or to present a motion under 

Rule 30(d)(4).”); Ralston Purina Co. v. McFarland, 550 F.2d 967, 973-74 (4th Cir. 1977) (“If 

plaintiff’s counsel had any objection to the questions, under Rule 30(c) he should have placed it 

on the record and the evidence would have been taken subject to such objection. If counsel felt 

that the discovery procedures were being conducted in bad faith or abused in any manner, the 

appropriate action was to present the matter to the court by motion under Rule 30(d).”). 

In this regard, “[t]he remedy for oppressive, annoying and improper deposition 

questioning is not simply to instruct a witness not to answer. Rather, it requires suspending the 

deposition and filing a motion under Rule 30(d)(3). Simply put, there are very few circumstances 

in which an instruction not to answer a deposition question is appropriate.” Brincko v. Rio 

Properties, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 576, 581 (D. Nev. 2011). Here, plaintiffs do not argue that they 

instructed the witness not to answer to preserve a privilege, enforce a limitation directed by the 

court, or to present a motion to the court. 

Accordingly, upon consideration of the arguments on file, those made at the hearing, 

plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to appear, and for the reasons set forth above and on the record at the 

February 14, 2020 hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ December 31, 2019 motion to compel (ECF No. 116) is granted; and

2. Plaintiffs shall produce James Pierini for a continued deposition within twenty-eight 

days of the date of this order. 

Dated: February 14, 2020

DLB:6

DB\orders\orders.civil\storz0068.oah.021420

Case 2:18-cv-00068-DJC-DB Document 125 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 2