Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05307/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05307-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5307 PJH (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY’S MOTION FOR ORDER

ALLOWING ADDITIONAL TIME FOR

LEE LAYPORT DEPOSITION

(Docket No. 129)

Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance Company (“FMIC”) has moved the Court for leave to

take a two-day deposition of Lee Layport, the manager for design and installation of the Airport Rail

Transit Operating System (“AirTrain”) for Defendant Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) USA,

Inc. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral

argument of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) provides that, “[u]nless otherwise authorized by the

court or stipulated by the parties, a deposition is limited to one day of seven hours.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(d)(2). However, a “court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed for

fair examination of the deponent . . . .” Id. FMIC has adequately established that more time is

needed for the deposition of Mr. Layport. Bombardier does not dispute that Mr. Layport played a

key role in the AirTrain project for Bombardier, as indicated by the number of documents he

generated and received; indeed, at the hearing on the motion, Bombardier admitted that Mr. Layport

was the point person. Moreover, an extended deposition would not pose an unreasonable burden on

Bombardier or Mr. Layport, nor would an extended deposition be cumulative or duplicative since

Case 4:04-cv-05307-PJH Document 160 Filed 08/02/07 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

there are subjects about which Mr. Layport is knowledgeable that are not covered by the 30(b)(6)

deposition. It is also notable that Bombardier has designated a person other than Mr. Layport as its

30(b)(6) deponent, in large part because FMIC was seeking a deponent who could provide a “big

picture” view.

Accordingly, FMIC’s motion is granted. FMIC shall have two days (i.e., a total of fourteen

hours) to take the deposition of Mr. Layport. The first day of the deposition shall proceed on

September 6, 2007, at a time and place to be designated by FMIC. The parties shall meet and confer

to determine a mutually agreeable date for a second day of deposition.

This order disposes of Docket No. 129.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05307-PJH Document 160 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 2