Adams v. Community Housing Partnership

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AMY ADAMS, Case No. 23-cv-06073-WHO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RESOLVING DEPOSITION 9 v. DISPUTE

10 COMMUNITY HOUSING Re: Dkt. No. 69 PARTNERSHIP, 11 Defendant.

13 The parties are once again at odds. This time, the dispute centers around plaintiff Amy 14 Adams’s deposition and production of documents. It goes without saying that these are the types 15 of issues that counsel should be able to resolve between themselves without court supervision. 16 A. Deposition 17 Adams was one hour late to her scheduled November 20, 2024, deposition in Berkeley, 18 California, because her car was broken into. The deposition started at around 11:00 A.M. instead 19 of 10:00 A.M., and Adams sat for approximately 3.5 hours of time on the record. At the 20 deposition, defendant Community Housing Partnership (d/b/a and hereafter, “HomeRise”) noted 21 that Adams’ deposition would need to be continued to another day to be completed, but Adams 22 objected. HomeRise now asks that I order Adams to appear for an additional 2.5 hours of 23 deposition. 1 24 Rule 30(d)(1) provides that absent a stipulation or order from the court, a deposition is 25 limited to one day of seven hours. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). The court, however, “must allow 26

27 1 HomeRise concedes that the location chosen for the original deposition closed early, which 1 additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) “if needed to fairly examine the deponent or 2 || if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.” 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1); see also Carbajal v. OMNI Hotels Mgmt. Corp., 2021 WL 6618602 4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021). 5 Here, defense counsel’s opportunity to examine Adams was limited both because she was 6 an hour late to her scheduled deposition and the location chosen by defendant closed at 5 p.m. 7 Because Adams is the sole plaintiff in this case, the interests of justice require that HomeRise be 8 || given a reasonable amount of time to examine her. I GRANT its request that Adams sit for an 9 additional 2.5 hours of deposition (bringing the total testimony time to six hours). And it is not 10 || unreasonable for the deposition to occur in Berkeley. If the parties agree, of course, the deposition 11 may instead be conducted via Zoom. 12 Defense counsel must become a member of the bar of this court prior to the resumption of 5 13 the deposition. She should only ask questions that are relevant. I expect both counsel to 14 || demonstrate professionalism throughout the remainder of this case. 2 15 B. Document Production 16 HomeRise also asks that I order Adams to search for categories of documents identified in 3 17 the deposition notice for which it claims she has not yet searched. Dkt. No. 69 at 3:9-20. Adams 18 says that she has already completed her search for and production of responsive documents and 19 that she has no additional responsive documents. /d. at 3:22-25, 5:14-26. I will take Adams at her 20 || word. I see no reason to order her to repeat her search and production process. Defendant may of 21 course question her further about her search and the documents it revealed at the second part of 22 || her deposition; if disputes arise from that testimony, the parties may present the conflict to me in a 23 || joint letter. HomeRise’s request is otherwise DENIED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: December 2, 2024 26 . 27 iam H. Orrick 28 United States District Judge