Luong
Luong v. Alameda County
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAT THANH LUONG, et al., Case No.17-cv-06675-EMC (JSC)
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE: LATE-NOTICED 30(B)(6)
9 v. DEPOSITION NOTICE
10 NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 210, 211 Defendants. 11
12 13 Now before the Court is a letter brief from Defendants regarding Plaintiffs’ September 4, 14 2019 notice of a 30(b)(6) deposition of a “person most knowledgeable” from Alameda County, 15 (Dkt. No. 210), and Plaintiffs’ response, (Dkt. No. 211). The fact discovery cut off in this case 16 was June 20, 2019. As Plaintiffs noticed the deposition well after that deadline, Defendants seek a 17 protective order preventing the deposition from going forward. Plaintiffs counter that they 18 designated the witness as an unretained expert and therefore the deposition notice constitutes 19 timely expert discovery. 20 Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Alameda County 30(b)(6) witness is an expert 21 witness rather than or even in addition to a fact witness. Assuming that…