Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Applied Professional Training, Inc v. Mira Costa College

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 9, 2012

APPLIED PROFESSIONAL TRAINING, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MIRA COSTA COLLEGE, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY DISPUTE - RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION RE: TELESKILLS FINANCIALS [DOC. NO. 120]

Before the Court is a Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute filed on January 3, 2012. (Doc. No. 120). According to Plaintiff, the deposition of Defendant Ameri-Skills was duly noticed on November 22, 2011, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6), to appear and be deposed on December 12, 2011. Defendant Ameri-Skills and its counsel failed to appear. Plaintiff is seeking an order compelling Defendant to appear and for monetary sanctions.

There is some history before this Court regarding this deposition. On Friday, December 9, 2011, Defendant sought a protective order precluding or limiting depositions scheduled during the weeks of December 12 and 19, including the instant deposition. (Doc. No. 107). On Saturday, December 10, 2011, the Court denied the motion as lacking good cause. (Doc. No. 108). Then, on December 12, Defendant filed a motion seeking a telephonic conference with the Court and provided additional reasons why the scheduled depositions should not go forward. (Doc. No. 109).

That motion was denied on December 13 as lacking good cause. (Doc. No. 110).

Counsel for Defendant claims that he advised counsel for Plaintiff of his unavailability and sought a continuance. Counsel's declaration, however, does not state when counsel sought the continuance. The declaration filed by counsel for Plaintiff states that he did offer to re-schedule but that counsel for Defendant also was seeking an agreement to preclude or limit the scheduled depositions. In its Memorandum regarding this motion, Defendant admits that it failed to appear and argues that the deposition, in its view, is duplicative and unnecessary. Defendant also argues against sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff knew that no one would appear. Plaintiff claims that he was unaware, until the morning of December 12, that no one would appear that day.

The Court finds Defendant Ameri-Skills must appear for this deposition at a mutually agreeable date no later than January 27, 2012, absent agreement to the contrary between the parties. The Court declines to impose sanctions at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

20120109

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.