Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. California

April 28, 2014

BETTY GUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE

WILLIAM V. GALLO, Magistrate Judge.

On April 23, 2014, counsel submitted to the Court a Joint Statement For Determination of discovery Dispute ("Joint Statement"). In the Joint Statement, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to produce for deposition the person most knowledgeable on a number of topics. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Application.

I

BACKGROUND

On November 22, 2013, Plaintiff served on Defendants a Request for Production of Documents. Defendants agreed to produce to Plaintiff documents responsive to the Requests for Production of Documents. On February 24, 2014, Defendants produced responsive documents to Plaintiff. Subsequently, Defendants produced more documents to Plaintiff in three separate productions. The last production of documents occurred on March 12, 2014.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff served on Defendants a Deposition Notice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) ("March 19, 2014 Deposition Notice" or "Deposition Notice") for a deposition to be taken on March 28, 2014.[1] On March 24, 2014, Defendants served on Plaintiff their objections to the March 19, 2014 Deposition Notice. Defendants objected that the testimony sought by the Deposition Notice was irrelevant to any issues pertaining to class certification. Further, Defendant objected that the notice provided was unreasonable in light of the scope of the deposition topics listed in the Deposition Notice, since Plaintiff had never requested documents from Defendants regarding the deposition topics listed in the Deposition Notice. Defendants contend that the Deposition Notice was a request for production of documents that failed to comply with the 30-day notice requirement required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 34.

II

APPLICABLE LAW

Fed R. Civ. P. 30(b) states in pertinent part:

(1) A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable notice to every other party (of the deposition)...
(2)... The notice to a party deponent may be accompanied by a request (for production of documents) under Rule 34 to produce documents... at a deposition...
(6) In its notice..., a party may name as the deponent a private... corporation..., and must describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination... (emphasis added).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2) states in pertinent part: "The party to whom the request (for production of documents) is directed must ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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