The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND (Docket Entry No. 9)
On July 27, 2012, Plaintiff Sean Barbin filed a "Motion to Quash Deposition," wherein he seeks to quash the notice of his deposition set by Defendant MV Transportation, Inc., for August 8, 2012, in San Francisco, California. (Doc. 9.)
On July 30, 2012, this Court issued a minute order requiring any opposition to be filed no later than August 1, 2012, and indicating that with such filing the matter would be deemed submitted. (See Doc. 11.) Later that same date, Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiff's motion. (Docs. 12 & 13.)
The purpose of discovery is to make trial "less a game of blind man's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent possible." United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683 (1958). Discovery will also serve to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947).
Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
"The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections." Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990).
Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerns oral depositions and provides, in pertinent part:
(a) Without Leave. A party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of court . . .. The deponent's attendance may be compelled by subpoena under Rule 45.
(b) Notice in General. A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions 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. . ..
Plaintiff contends the deposition notice should be quashed because the location of the deposition is unreasonable, and because Defendant "committed perjury when serving" him with the notice. (Doc. 9 at 2.) He claims that Defendant "refused to consider conducting the deposition by phone conference" and that he attempted to "resolve this problem through email and phone consultations . . .." (Doc. 9 at 2-3.)
Defendant asserts that it did not intentionally misrepresent the date in its proof of service, that it has provided more than reasonable notice to Plaintiff regarding the date of his deposition, that it is entitled to take his deposition in person, that it offered to adjust the date and location of the deposition in an effort to accommodate Plaintiff; and finally, that ...