Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04271/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04271-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS MELENDEZ, an individual, doing

business as CALIFORNIA MOTOR

ESCORTS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MIKE OLIVEIRA, an individual, doing

business as CALIFORNIA MOTOR

ESCORTS, DAVID REIMERS, an individual,

doing business as CALIFORNIA MOTOR

ESCORTS, JOHN DISKON, an individual,

doing business as CALIFORNIA MOTOR

ESCORTS, CALIFORNIA MOTOR

ESCORTS, an unknown business entity, and

DOES 1 through 100,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04271 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

PROTECTIVE ORDER

In this civil action, defense counsel recently served a notice to take the deposition of

plaintiff’s counsel, who then moved for a protective order and an order shortening time. 

Defense counsel was notified on June 26 that the hearing on the motion for protective order

would be heard at 8:00 a.m. on June 27, the day set in the deposition notice for the deposition. 

Defense counsel sent the Court a letter professing to believe that the hearing was only over

whether to shorten time and did not appear at the hearing. At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel

provided a letter sent to defense counsel by fax on June 26 at 2:38 p.m., stating clearly that the

Case 3:05-cv-04271-WHA Document 30 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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

protective order motion was going to be heard. The letter made no reference to merely hearing

a motion for an order shortening time.

Good cause having been shown, the deposition of plaintiff’s counsel is stayed until, if

ever, defense counsel obtains a court order allowing it to go forward upon a showing of good

cause. Under Rules 26 and 37(a)(4), defense counsel must pay all reasonable expenses incurred

in seeking this protective order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2006 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04271-WHA Document 30 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 2