Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02239/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02239-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES O. BRADLEY TRUST, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ZENITH CAPITAL LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-2239 JSW (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING ALBRECHT

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

DEPOSITIONS

(Docket No. 207)

The Albrecht Defendants have moved the Court to compel the depositions of individual

defendants Jed Cooper, Rick Tasker, and Gregg Smith. The Albrecht Defendants argue that they

were not afforded the opportunity to question or complete their questioning of the individual

defendants. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, and good cause

appearing therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion but orders that the parties split the costs

of the depositions as detailed below.

I. DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the Court rejects the individual defendants’ argument that the

Albrecht Defendants unduly delayed in bringing their motion. The discovery motion was filed

within the deadline specified by the Civil Local Rules. See Civ. L. R. 26-2 (providing that “no

motions to compel discovery may be filed more than 7 court days after the discovery cut-off”). The

Court therefore turns to the merits of the Albrecht Defendants’ motion.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2), a deposition is ordinarily limited to one day

of seven hours. However, a “court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if

Case 3:04-cv-02239-JSW Document 224 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

2

needed for a fair examination of the deponent or if the deponent or another person, or other

circumstance, impedes or delays the examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2). The advisory

committee notes point out that, “[i]n multi-party cases, the need for each party to examine the

witness may warrant additional time, although duplicative questioning should be avoided and parties

with similar interests should strive to designate one lawyer to question about areas of common

interest.” Id., 2000 advisory committee notes.

The Albrecht Defendants argue that they need to complete the depositions of the individual

defendants “in order to gather sufficient information to support a motion for a determination that the

settlement is in good faith that will be filed in this court shortly.” Mot. at 5. They admit that, on or

about July 20, 2006, they agreed to close all of the depositions because of an anticipated settlement

with Plaintiffs but contend that, upon further reflection, they determined that the depositions needed

to be completed because the individual defendants (or the other Zenith Defendants) might challenge

the good faith of the Albrecht Defendants’ settlement with Plaintiffs. At the hearing on the motion

to compel, the Albrecht Defendants further argued that the depositions are needed because, if this

case does not settle and proceeds to trial, a jury could find the Albrecht Defendants liable if the

individual defendants were to claim that they relied upon the Albrecht Defendants and that claim

went unchallenged.

The Court agrees with the Albrecht Defendants that the depositions of the individual

defendants need to be completed in order for there to be a fair examination of each. The Albrecht

Defendants seek relevant information through the depositions. Although the individual defendants

disputed relevance at the hearing on the motion to compel, they notably failed to argue relevance in

their briefing. Moreover, relevance for purposes of discovery is broader than relevance for purposes

of trial. 

The Court, however, shall limit the length of the depositions as the Albrecht Defendants in

their briefing argued only that the depositions were needed for purposes related to settlement and

indicated that the additional time needed was therefore limited. For Mr. Cooper and Mr. Tasker, the

Albrecht Defendants shall have an additional 45 minutes each to complete their questioning. For

Mr. Smith, the Albrecht Defendants shall have an additional 1.5 hours to conduct their questioning. 

Case 3:04-cv-02239-JSW Document 224 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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

More time is needed for Mr. Smith as the Albrecht Defendants never asked him any questions. The

Court further orders that all three depositions shall take place on the same date in order to limit the

costs of the depositions.

Finally, the Court orders that the parties shall share the cost of (1) the court reporter fee

(excluding any transcripts ordered by the parties) and (2) the reasonable cost of travel (e.g., coach

airfare and taxi) for counsel for the individual defendants to attend the depositions in the San

Francisco Bay Area. The individual defendants are required to bear part of the costs because their

counsel unreasonably cut off the deposition of Mr. Cooper. The Albrecht Defendants are required to

bear part of the costs because their counsel, and not counsel for the individual defendants, made the

decision to terminate the depositions of Mr. Tasker and Mr. Cooper prior to their completion. This

would have necessitated further deposition on another day, requiring additional travel by counsel for

the individual defendants.

This order disposes of Docket No. 207.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02239-JSW Document 224 Filed 11/16/06 Page 3 of 3