Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05262-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher R. Harris
Plaintiff
San Jose Mercury News, Inc.
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER R. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5262 CRB (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF

CHRISTOPHER R. HARRIS

(Docket No. 221)

Defendant’s motion came on for hearing on May 5, 2006. Having considered the papers

filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the argument of counsel, and good cause

appearing therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion.

The limits of the first deposition were not clearly defined. Although originally limited per

Judge Breyer’s order to fair use, the scope of the deposition was expanded to include the DMCA,

copyright registration and other issues. Neither party made explicit their understanding as to the

limit, if any, on the proper scope. Counsel for both sides left the matter ambiguous.

The Court finds there are subject areas that in fact were not fully explored and that given the

importance of Plaintiff’s testimony in this case, a further half-day (i.e. 4 hours) deposition is

warranted. Given Plaintiff’s representation about his financial situation and health concerns, and the

fact that Defendant contributed to the ambiguity which has now led to the second deposition, the

Court concludes that the deposition shall proceed in one of the two following ways:

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 243 Filed 05/05/06 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

1. Defendant pays for reasonable transportation expenses (including lodging) to fly

Plaintiff to the Bay Area for a live deposition, or

2. Plaintiff’s deposition be taken via live video conference with both counsel appearing

remotely, Defendant bearing the expense of set up.

The deposition shall not focus on questions concerning fair use or the DCMA. As to matters

which overlap between these areas and new subjects permitted hereunder, a reasonable number of

questions may be asked without strict and literal limits. But the focus must be on the subject areas

not covered in the first deposition.

This order disposes of Docket No. 221.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05262-CRB Document 243 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 2