Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BOLD LIMITED, et al., Case No. 22-cv-01045-BLF (SVK)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 114 10 ROCKET RESUME, INC., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Submission pursuant to which Plaintiff Bold Limited 13 (“Bold”) seeks a protective order as to the location of depositions for three of its company- 14 affiliated witnesses: Mr. Ortiz and Ms. Matthews (both of whom were designated as 30(b)6 15 witnesses by Plaintiffs); and Ms. Vanderham (noticed by Defendants). Dkt. 114. Defendants 16 Rocket Resume, Inc. and Stephen Zimmerman (collectively, “Rocket”) noticed all three 17 depositions in San Francisco and oppose Bold’s request. The Court has reviewed the relevant 18 pleadings, the Joint Submission and relevant law and resolves this dispute without oral argument. L.R. 7-1(b). 19 The Parties dispute the timing of deposition notices, both formal and informal, and the 20 impact on their respective obligations as to these depositions. However, at bottom, are two 21 undisputed facts. The first is that discovery closes in ten days. Consequently, these depositions 22 need to happen in the very near term, even allowing for a short, stipulated extension between the 23 Parties. The second is better described as an undisputed group of facts, namely the showings of 24 good cause as to each witness which limit their travel capabilities in the near term. Bold 25 demonstrates that travel to San Francisco in the coming weeks would be a hardship as to each 26 witness for different reasons (Mr. Ortiz, business commitments; Ms. Matthews, spousal care 27 following surgery; Ms. Vanderham, child care). Rocket does not challenge these showings in any ] meaningful way. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented in this case, including the 2 || unique hardships faced by the identified witnesses and the impending discovery deadline, the 3 Court finds good cause to grant the protective order. See Sony Corp. v. Vizio, Inc., No. 08-cv- 4 || 01135-RGK, 2009 WL 10674940, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2009) (“[T]he deposition of a plaintiff, 5 including a corporate plaintiff, its agents and employees, must generally be taken in the forum in 6 || Which the plaintiff filed suit, unless the plaintiff can show good cause that the deposition should 7 take place at another location.” (citations omitted)). Specifically, the Court ORDERS as follows: g e The depositions will take place in person, unless Defendant elects to take any or all of the 9 depositions remotely; 10 e The deposition of Nelson Ortiz will take place in either Houston or Atlanta, at Defendant’s election; 1] 1 e The deposition of Helen Matthews will take place within 50 miles of her residence at a

location of Defendant’s choosing; 23 & e The deposition of Jami Vanderham will take place in either Ames or Des Moines, Iowa, at 14 Defendant’s election.

e The Parties are to meet and confer within 24 hours of receipt of this Order, in person or by 16 video, to confirm dates and locations of the depositions. Z 18 SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: October 10, 2023 20

22 SUSAN VAN KEULEN 74 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28