Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00329/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00329-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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

KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

KATHERINE B. DOWLING (CSBN 220767)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-6833

Facsimile: (415) 436-7169

Email: katherine.dowling@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ELIZABETH LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-05-0329 MHP

E-Filing Case

SCOPE OF DISCOVERY [PROPOSED]

ORDER

Parties contacted this Court on January 11, 2006 during the scheduled deposition of

plaintiff Elizabeth Lopez. Counsel for plaintiff wanted to restrict the scope of the plaintiff’s

deposition, since this was the second deposition, only to lines of questioning not addressed in the

first deposition. The first deposition lasted approximately two hours. Counsel for defendant did

not want to restrict the scope of the second deposition because counsel for plaintiff had belatedly

provided required initial disclosure documents the day of the first deposition on October 6, 2005,

therefore, counsel did not have the benefit of those documents prior to that deposition which

might require some questioning overlap. 

The Court ordered that the deposition should continue for no longer than three hours, not

Case 3:05-cv-00329-MHP Document 15 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
 Case 3:05-cv-00329-MHP Document 16 Filed 01/18/06 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 This proposed order was prepared by counsel for defendant at the request of the Court.

1

2

be restricted as to scope and that counsel for plaintiff could ask the court for sanctions if he

believed that any line of questioning in the second deposition was unnecessarily duplicative.1

ORDER

The above Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the Court.

Dated: _____________________________________

HONORABLE MARILYN H. PATEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00329-MHP Document 15 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 2 of 2

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:05-cv-00329-MHP Document 16 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2