Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02124/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02124-13/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP TEMPLE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GUARDSMARK, LLC,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-02124 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

(Docket No. 75)

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel additional deposition testimony from Guardsmark’s

Regional Manager, Mike East. Plaintiff deposed Mr. East on May 21, 2010. During the deposition,

counsel attempted to question Mr. East regarding whether Guardsmark security guards are authorized

and permitted to take rest breaks. The gist of the line of questioning now at issue is as follows.

Plaintiff’s counsel asked Mr. East whether Guardsmark employees are permitted to take rest breaks and

“ignore the client work site for 10 minutes twice a day.” Defense counsel objected to the question. Mr.

East answered that the guards “can take a 10-minute off-duty break,” but stated, “[i]gnore, I don’t know

what that’s about.” Plaintiff’s counsel then repeated the same “ignore” question several more times, and

received the same answer from Mr. East. After this exchange played out for several more minutes with

intermittent objections from the defense, defense counsel finally stated, “The question is defective,

intentionally so, and ambiguous and compound. . . . And it has been asked and answered several times.”

Plaintiff’s counsel responded, “I’m going to get a court order to get an answer to this question.”

In moving to compel Mr. East to answer the disputed question, plaintiff asserts that Mr. East was

“evading” the line of questioning. Plaintiff now explains that he was seeking an answer to the question

of whether security guards are “in fact relieved of all work duties during breaks.” Plaintiff fails to

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 82 Filed 07/27/10 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

explain, however, why counsel did not reword his question to Mr. East, or even explain what he meant

by the vague term “ignore,” once it was clear that Mr. East did not understand the question. If counsel

wanted an answer to the question whether security guards are relieved of work duties during their

breaks, counsel should have phrased the question this way. Plaintiff is not entitled to compel any further

deposition testimony from Mr. East, and the motion to compel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July27, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 82 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 2