Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00845/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00845-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZONE SPORTS CENTER, LLC and

FRESNO ROCK TACO, LLC, CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00845-LJO-BAM

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING NATIONAL SURETY

CORPORATION’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE

ORDER SUSPENDING THE DEPOSITION

OF PAUL BINDER

vs.

NATIONAL SURETY 

CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

_______________________________ /

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 7, 2012, the Court held an informal status conference to discuss a discovery

dispute regarding the timing of a third-party deposition scheduled or March 7, 2012. (Doc. 27.)

Counsel Richard Hamlish appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiffs Zone Sports Center, LLC

and Fresno Rock Taco, LLC (“Plaintiffs”). Counsel Sean Cooney appeared telephonically on behalf

of Defendant National Surety Corporation (“Defendant”). Defendant initiated the telephonic

conference, seeking to suspend the deposition of Paul Binder - a third party - on grounds of

insufficient written notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). 

1

Case 1:11-cv-00845-SKO Document 28 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff did not stipulate to informal resolution of the discovery dispute by the Magistrate

Judge. The Court construed Plaintiff’s initiation of this informal discovery conference call as an Ex

Parte Application for a protective order to suspend the deposition of Paul Binder pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(c). After considering the parties’ arguments during the March 7, 2012 telephonic

conference call, and for the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Ex Parte

Application to suspend the deposition of Mr. Binder. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1), “[a] party who wants to depose a person must give reasonable

written notice to every other party. The notice must state the time and place of the deposition and, if

known, the deponent’s name and address.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1). What constitutes reasonable

notice depends on the circumstances of each case. See Hart v. United States, 772 F.2d 285, 286 (6

th

Cir. 1989). A party opposing a deposition on grounds that the deposition was insufficiently noticed

may move for a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). See Paige v. Commissioner, 248

F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D. Cal. 2008). 

Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nor the Ninth Circuit provide definitive

guidelines as to what constitutes “reasonable written notice.” Commonly, courts find that notice of

at least five business days’ notice is required to constitute reasonable notice. See, e.g., Paige v.

Commissioner, 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (finding that fourteen days’ notice was

reasonable); Jones v. United States, 720 F. Supp. 355, 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (holding that eight days’

notice was reasonable); United States v. Philip Morris Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d 27, 36-7 (D.D.C. 2004)

(notice of three business days does not constitute reasonable notice); Vardon Gold Co., Inc. v.

Supremem Gold Sales, Inc., No. 89-cv-2654, 1989 WL 153335, *1-2 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 2, 1989) (four

days notice was unreasonable). 

The most important consideration, however, is whether the notice is reasonable under the

circumstances of the case. See In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 231 F.R.D. 320, 327 (N.D. Ill.

2005) (“[T]en business days’ notice [of a deposition] would seem to be reasonable,” however, given

“the context of this case, the notices were not reasonable or timely”); but see, Natural Organics v.

2

Case 1:11-cv-00845-SKO Document 28 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 4
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

Proteins Plus, Inc., 724 F. Supp. 50, 52, n.3 (E.D. N.Y. 1989) (noting that one day’s notice was

reasonable because the parties were on an expedited discovery schedule, the need for a deposition

arose suddenly, and the deposing was conducted over the telephone). 

B. The Timing of Plaintiffs’ Notice Was Not Reasonable

The parties dispute whether a valid agreement was reached as to the March 7, 2012

deposition date. It is undisputed that no written notice provided. Plaintiffs did not provide

reasonable written notice to Defendant of their intention to take the deposition of Mr. Binder on

March 7, 2012, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1). Plaintiffs argued that oral representations were made in

December of 2011 establishing March 7, 2012 as an agreeable deposition date for Mr. Binder. 

However, the parties agree that written notice of Plaintiffs’ intention to take the deposition of Mr.

Binder was not provided until March 6, 2011. Regardless of any oral representations that were

made, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require written notice. Plaintiffs provided only one day’s

written notice of their intent to depose Mr. Binder. Under the circumstances of this case, the Court

finds one day’s notice to be unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s Ex Parte

Application for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c). 

C. Paul Binder’s Deposition is Continued

During the March 7, 2012 conference call, Plaintiffs requested a date-certain for the Binder

Deposition to take place. At the conference, Plaintiffs and Defendant established a mutually

agreeable date and time for the Binder deposition to take place. The Binder deposition will take

place on March 27, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. The Court directs Defendant’s counsel, Sean Cooney, to

provide notice to Paul Binder regarding the date, time and location of the deposition. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) is

GRANTED;

2. Plaintiffs’ deposition of Paul Binder, currently noticed for March 7, 2012, is CONTINUED

to March 27, 2012. 

3

Case 1:11-cv-00845-SKO Document 28 Filed 03/07/12 Page 3 of 4
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

3. Defendant shall prepare an Order continuing the deposition and requiring Mr. Binder’s

appearance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:11-cv-00845-SKO Document 28 Filed 03/07/12 Page 4 of 4