Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01704/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01704-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

 The order filed in this case on June 28, 2010 (Doc. No. 136) contains an error in the 1

date by which depositions shall be completed. The amendment is shown in bold in this order.

 In response to the court’s order filed June 22, 2010, the parties filed a document that is 2

deemed to be the required notice of motion and motion required by Local Rule 251(a).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE ALFANO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-08-1704 JAM DAD

v.

BRP INC., et al.,

Defendants. AMENDED ORDER 1

 /

This case came before the court on June 25, 2010, for hearing of defendants’

motion for protective orders preventing or limiting the scope of six depositions and plaintiffs’

counter-motion to compel the completion of the depositions on or before the applicable discovery

deadline of July 23, 2010. Henry Jones, Esq. appeared telephonically for plaintiffs. Christina 2

M. Paul, Esq. appeared telephonically for defendants.

/////

/////

Case 2:08-cv-01704-JAM-DAD Document 137 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefing, their arguments in open court, and the

entire file, the court grants defendants’ motion for protective orders in part and grants plaintiffs’

motion to compel with regard to the deadline for completing the depositions.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for protective orders (Doc. No. 134) is granted in part as

follows:

a. With respect to plaintiff’s June 4, 2010 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice

relating to the Joint Defense/Common Interest Agreement and the Industry’s Response to Orifice

Injury Hazards, the scope of topics 1 and 2 is narrowed as set forth at the hearing and plaintiffs

are limited to two hours of examination on all ten topics, while cross-examination by defendants

is unlimited;

b. With respect to plaintiffs’ June 15, 2010 Rule 30(b)(1) deposition

notice of defendants’ Chief Financial Officer, the deposition is precluded at this time based on

the assumption that defendants’ responses to written discovery will be adequate with respect to

the subject matter at issue; however, if defendants’ responses to written discovery are not

adequate for plaintiffs’ purposes, plaintiffs may renew their motion to compel the 30(b)(1)

deposition, on shortened time;

c. With respect to plaintiffs’ May 28, 2010 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition

notice regarding the 2009 Letter to Owners Regarding Updated Safety Video, plaintiffs are

limited to two hours of examination regarding the letter, while cross-examination by defendants

is unlimited;

d. With respect to plaintiffs’ June 11, 2010 deposition subpoenas of Dr.

Stephen L. Young, Dr. Timothy Rhoades and Elaine Wisniewski, these depositions are

precluded; and

/////

/////

Case 2:08-cv-01704-JAM-DAD Document 137 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Doc. No. 134) is granted, and the depositions not

precluded by this order shall be completed by July 23, 2010.

DATED: June 28, 2010.

DAD:kw

Ddad1/orders.civil/alfano1704.amdoah.dmpo.pmtc.062510

Case 2:08-cv-01704-JAM-DAD Document 137 Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 3