Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937-4/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.

2 Defendant Simpson is cautioned that this order is not intended to condone any dilatory

and/or obstructive conduct on her part. From the purported “Objection to Deposition of Janet

Simpson” that Simpson served in response to the notice of deposition Plaintiff served, it appears

Simpson’s failure to appear for deposition may well have been unjustified. Rule 37(d) expressly states

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)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME

On December 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Shorten Time for Hearing on Motion for

Order to Compel Deposition of Defendant Janet Simpson, and Setting the Place of the Deposition

and Determining the Length of the Depositions.1 Having reviewed the moving papers, the court

finds it appropriate to rule on the motion to shorten time without further briefing or oral argument. 

Based on the briefs and arguments presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time is DENIED.2 The only

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 93 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 2
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

that a party’s failure to appear for deposition “may not be excused on the ground that the discovery

sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for a protective order as

provided by Rule 26(c).” There is no provision that allows a party to avoid appearing for deposition by

simply serving written objections. Moreover, neither the fact that another party’s deposition has not

been completed, nor the location for which a deposition is noticed (absent a protective order), is

justification for failing to appear for deposition. See, Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26(d) & 30(b)(1). There is also

no requirement that a party noticing a deposition “clear” a deposition date with another party’s counsel.

Civil Local Rule 30-1 requires only that the noticing party confer about the schedule. If an definitive

agreement is not reached, the noticing party may proceed to notice the motion and the burden to seek

relief is on the other party to seek a protective order.

ORDER, page 2

reason Plaintiff proffers for shortening time is the fact that the Judge Fogel has ordered the ENE

session to be completed by the end of January, if not the end of December, and Plaintiff would like

to take Defendant Simpson’s deposition before the ENE session. However, it is clear from the

transcript of the November 18, 2005, Case Management Conference submitted by Plaintiff that

Judge Fogel anticipated that the depositions would likely not be done before the ENE session. 

Plaintiff’s counsel made no mention to Judge Fogel during that Case Management Conference of any

desire to take Simpson’s deposition prior to the ENE session.

Plaintiff has known of this dispute over Simpson’s deposition since at least the first week of

November when Simpson served a purported “objection” to the deposition notice. Presumably

Simpson failed to appear for her duly noticed deposition on November 22, 2005. Yet Plaintiff

waited over two more weeks before filing his motion to compel. And Plaintiff’s counsel did not

inform Judge Fogel at the November 28, 2005 Case Management Conference of any need for time to

move to compel before the ENE session.

Under all of the circumstances, an order shortening time for the hearing is not warranted. 

The court understands Plaintiff’s concern that Defendant Simpson is improperly delaying her

deposition. However, monetary sanctions will be an adequate remedy assuming Simpson is unable

to show substantial justification for failing to appear for deposition and fails to satisfactorily remedy

the situation.

Dated: 12/15/05

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 93 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 2