Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03209/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03209-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
College of Health & Human Services, San Francisco State University
Defendant
Julia Powell Keller-McIntyre
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 1

 As noted in the Court’s order located at Docket No. 92, the Court will not in the future consider

any e-mails sent by either party.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA POWELL KELLER-MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN

SERVICES, SAN FRANCISCO STATE

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-3209 MMC (EMC)

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS DURING

DEPOSITIONS AND PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR ONE ADDITIONAL

DEPOSITION AND EXTENSION OF

TIME

On October 17, 2006, the Court held a telephone conference call to address discovery

disputes raised by Ms. Keller-McIntyre in an e-mail.1

 The Court also discussed with the parties a

motion recently filed by Ms. Keller-McIntyre, in which she asked for permission to take the

deposition of Provost John Gemello and for an extension of time to designate an expert. This order

memorializes the rulings of the Court made during the course of the conference call.

A. Deposition of Russell Kilday-Hicks

Defense counsel may object at any point during the deposition in order to preserve the

objection(s). However, in general, the objection should be no longer than two or three words (e.g.,

lack of personal knowledge, speculative, vague/ambiguous, calls for legal conclusion). Unless

defense counsel specifically instructs the deponent not to answer, the deponent should answer the

question (to the extent that he is able). Although the Court provides this guidance for the deposition

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 93 Filed 10/18/06 Page 1 of 4
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

of Mr. Kilday-Hicks, it expects that the parties should conduct themselves in accordance with this

order for all future depositions of defense witnesses.

B. Deposition of Richard Dziadur

According to Ms. Keller-McIntyre, she recently filed a motion asking for the same relief

sought in her e-mail (i.e., to redepose Richard Dziadur and to have the College pay for the costs of

the deposition because of alleged improper conduct by defense counsel during the deposition). The

Court therefore shall await receipt of the motion before ruling on the merits of this discovery

dispute. In order to assess Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s claims that defense counsel acted improperly

during the deposition, she must provide the Court with specific examples of improper conduct by

defense counsel. 

Assuming that Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s motion is substantively the same as her e-mail and

fails to provide specific examples of improper conduct by defense counsel, the Court shall give her

until October 27, 2006, to file with the Court and serve on defense counsel supplemental evidence

establishing specific examples of improper conduct by defense counsel. Thereafter, the College

shall have until November 1, 2006, to file an opposition to Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s motion. There

shall be no reply brief. Based on the papers submitted, the Court shall decide whether a telephone

conference call or formal hearing is needed.

C. Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s Request to Take the Deposition of John Gemello

The Court DENIES Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s request to take one additional deposition, i.e., the

deposition of Mr. Gemello. Mr. Gemello is not one of the relevant decision makers.

D. Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s Request for an Extension of Time to Designate an Expert

The Court GRANTS Ms. Keller-McIntyre’s request for an extension of time to designate an

expert. However, the Court shall only give Ms. Keller-McIntyre until December 1, 2006, to

designate an expert. Although not addressed by the Court during the conference call, as a matter of

fairness, the College shall have until December 15, 2006, to designate a rebuttal expert. The College 

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 93 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

shall be given one extra week -- i.e., until December 22, 2006 -- to take the deposition of any expert

designated by Ms. Keller-McIntyre. Likewise, should the College designate a rebuttal expert, Ms.

Keller-McIntyre shall have until December 22, 2006, to take the deposition of the expert.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2006

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 93 Filed 10/18/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA POWELL KELLER-MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN

SERVICES, SAN FRANCISCO STATE

UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

______________________________/

No. C-06-3209 MMC (EMC)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Julia Powell Keller-McIntyre

P.O. Box 320662

San Francisco, CA 94132

415/314-4204 (cell)

415/405-3943 (work)

ALL OTHER COUNSEL/PARTIES TO

RECEIVE ORDER VIA ELECTRONIC

FILING

Dated: October 18, 2006 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-03209-MMC Document 93 Filed 10/18/06 Page 4 of 4