Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-00446/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-00446-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STARVONA HARRIS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG (KAW)

ORDER TERMINATING STARVONA 

HARRIS'S MOTION FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 34, 35

On June 3, 2017, Plaintiff Starvona Harris filed a motion for protective order to prevent 

Defendant Best Buy from deposing her in this lawsuit in light of her prior deposition in the related 

case, Starvona Harris v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., Case No. 15-cv-00657-HSG. (Pl.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 

35 at 1.) On June 5, 2017, the pending motion and all other discovery disputes were referred to 

the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 39.)

Pursuant to the undersigned’s standing order, discovery disputes between the parties must 

be addressed in a joint letter. (Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 13.) Accordingly, The 

Court TERMINATES the motion for protective order and orders the parties to meet and confer in 

good faith to resolve the dispute without further court intervention. 

To aid the parties in their meet and confer efforts, a cursory review of Plaintiff’s motion 

indicates that she mistakenly relies on Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 250 F.R.D. 452, 

454 (N.D. Cal. 2008), in support of her position that she is entitled to a protective order. (Pl.’s 

Mot. at 9.) Hynix is easily distinguishable on the facts, as it was one of three, related patent cases, 

and, to minimize the number of depositions, the district court issued a case management order that 

required that 

[a]ll depositions or other sworn testimony in the Rambus Related 

Actions may be used by any party in the Rambus NDCal Cases as if 

Case 4:17-cv-00446-HSG Document 41 Filed 06/06/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

taken in each of the Rambus NDCal Cases. A party shall be allowed 

to take a further deposition with respect to new issues with which it 

is concerned. A party shall not repeat prior lines of questioning of a 

deponent.

250 F.R.D. at 454. Indeed, in Hynix, the court held a lengthy case management conference and 

solicited competing case management proposals before adopting the “cross-use” provision

Plaintiff seeks to have the Court impose. Id. at 456. The undersigned, however, is unaware of a 

similar order being entered in this case.

In the event that the parties’ meet and confer efforts fail to fully resolve this dispute, they

shall file a joint letter not to exceed five pages, in which they provide a detailed summary of each 

party’s final substantive position, including relevant legal authority. Id.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2017

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-00446-HSG Document 41 Filed 06/06/17 Page 2 of 2