Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01009/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01009-5/pdf.json

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

---

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.

2 When the court authorized further briefing on scheduling the depositions, the court

anticipated that Plaintiff would include his scheduling needs in his brief. Because he did not, the court

will entertain simultaneous briefs.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TIMOTHY GENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEZ AMERICA, INC., 

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1009 PVT

INTERIM ORDER RE SCHEDULING

DEPOSITIONS OF DR. HAROLD OKORNSCHMIDT, WILHELM LADENHAUF, SHEA

STICKER AND JIM MELLO

On November 28, 2006, pursuant to footnote 2 of this court’s October 2, 2006 Order re

Defendant's Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the

depositions of Dr. Harold Okorn-Schmidt, Wilhelm Ladenhauf, Shea Sticker and Jim Mello.1

Having reviewed the papers submitted by Plaintiff, the court finds it appropriate to issue this interim

order. Based on the moving papers, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than December 4, 2006 the parties shall file

simultaneous briefs setting forth all scheduling information for these four deponents during

December and January.2 Plaintiff shall state all dates for which he does not have unalterable plans

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 126 Filed 11/29/06 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

3 The court is aware that the parties both claim each other is violated prior agreements

about the priority of depositions. The parties are free to reach such agreements in meet and confer, but

when the parties cannot agree on the impact of prior agreements, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

apply. Under Rule 26(d), there is no priority to depositions. Defendant has moved to compel Plaintiff’s

deposition, and that motion will be dealt with separately.

4 As previously noted by the court, defense counsel are signed up for electronic filing, and

will be getting notice of this order through the court’s electronic filing system. The court will also send

hard copies of the order to both Plaintiff and defense counsel by first class mail.

ORDER, page 2

that would conflict with taking a deposition. Defendant shall state, for each deponent and each

attorney assigned to this case, all dates for which they do not have unalterable plans that would

conflict with appearing for deposition. For any dates that Plaintiff, the deponents or defense counsel

have unalterable plans, the nature of such plans shall be expressly stated, and a supporting

declaration shall be filed. The parties shall also note any special considerations regarding the time

necessary for travel. The court will then schedule these four depositions. The parties and deponents

are cautioned not to unreasonably limit the dates of their availability; in the event the court cannot

find dates that accommodate the schedules of all involved, the court will choose dates on whatever

basis the court finds most reasonable.3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, while document requests included with deposition notices

normally require production of documents only on the date of the deposition, in light of the

difficulties the parties have cooperating in discovery, and to reduce further difficulties, Defendant

and the deponents will be expected to produce documents, and serve the responses and objections to

the document requests, no later than December 12, 2006. The court deemed the subpoenas to be

deposition notices on October 2, 2006. Defendants will have had more than 30 days from that date

to prepare the responses and document production as allowed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

30 and 34.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel shall immediately serve a copy of this

order on Plaintiff by fax.4

Dated: 11/29/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 126 Filed 11/29/06 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

copies mailed on to:

Timothy Gens

Post Office Box 61029

Palo Alto, CA 94306

Jason A. Geller

David P. Borovsky

Long & Levit 

465 California St., # 500

San Francisco, CA 94104

 _______________________________

 CORINNE LEW

 Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 126 Filed 11/29/06 Page 3 of 3