Banga v. Kanios ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NAVJEET SINGH BANGA, Case No. 16-cv-04270-RS (DMR) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION REGARDING DEPOSITION OF 10 CHRIS GUS KANIOS, et al., EXPERT SIDNEY BLUM 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 413, 416 12 This order is the latest and hopefully the last in the ongoing saga of the deposition of 13 Plaintiff Navjeet Singh Banga’s economic damages expert Sidney Blum. The court reviewed 14 Plaintiff’s administrative motion regarding Defendants’ “refusal to depose” Blum and Defendants’ 15 opposition thereto. [Docket Nos. 413, 416.] This matter is suitable for determination without a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 16 On May 4, 2021, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer to select a date for 17 Blum’s deposition and ordered the deposition to take place by videoconference by no later than 18 May 28, 2021, subject to specific payment provisions described below. [Docket No. 389.] 19 Following additional disputes about the deposition, including Blum’s demand for additional fees 20 before proceeding, on May 14, 2021, the court ordered Blum to appear for his deposition on May 21 26, 2021, subject only to the payment provisions set forth in the court’s May 4, 2021 order. 22 [Docket No. 397.] 23 Plaintiff filed objections to the court’s May 14, 2021 order, which the Honorable Richard 24 Seeborg overruled the morning of May 26, 2021. [Docket Nos. 400, 408.] Despite Chief Judge 25 Seeborg’s order overruling the objections, Plaintiff and Blum did not appear for the deposition on 26 May 26, 2021 as ordered. Plaintiff, who is representing himself, may have believed that he and 27 Blum were not required to appear for the court-ordered deposition because he had objected to the 1 orders unless and until relieved of the obligation to do so. If a party objects to a magistrate 2 judge’s discovery order, that order remains in effect unless the objecting party requests and 3 receives a stay of the order from the reviewing judge. See, e.g., Verizon Cal. Inc. v. OnlineNIC, Inc., 647 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“a party may not disregard the clear terms of a 4 court order, even if that party believes the order to be misguided, mistaken, or otherwise 5 incorrect.” (citing Chapman v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 613 F.2d 193, 197 (9th Cir. 1979))). 6 Defendants state that they seek to depose Blum “if at the time of the deposition, he is still 7 Plaintiff’s expert witness.” [Docket No. 415.] Banga represents that Blum is still Plaintiff’s 8 expert witness. [See Docket No. 413-1 (Banga Decl. June 21, 2021) ¶ 6 (“I was able to convince 9 Mr. Blum to change his previous position wherein he . . . had decided to resign from my case on 10 May 17, 2021”).] In his administrative motion, Plaintiff states that Blum is available for his 11 deposition on June 28, 2021. Mot. 2, 6. On June 23, 2021, the court ordered Plaintiff to “instruct 12 Blum to reserve [June 28, 2021] for any deposition.” [Docket No. 414.] Defendants state that 13 they are available to depose Blum on June 28, 2021. Opp’n 6. Therefore, Blum shall appear for 14 his deposition on June 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., subject only to the payment provisions set 15 forth in the court’s May 4, 2021 order, as follows, with one exception noted below with respect 16 to a fee for responding to the subpoena: 17 Defendants are entitled to up to an additional six hours of testimony by Blum, payable at the previously-ordered rate for deposition 18 testimony of $800 per hour ($750 payable by Defendants; $50 payable by Banga). As Defendants have already paid their share for 19 three hours of deposition testimony, Blum must provide two hours of deposition testimony at no additional charge. Blum must also 20 provide up to an additional four hours of deposition testimony upon Defendants’ request; Blum’s $800 hourly fee for such testimony is 21 payable by Defendants and Banga within 24 hours of the completion of his deposition, as previously ordered. 22 May 4, 2021 Order at 4 (emphasis in original). If Defendants have not yet paid Blum the $450 flat 23 fee for all time he spent responding to their subpoena (see May 4, 2021 order), they must do so 24 within 24 hours of the completion of his deposition. 25 Plaintiff lacked good cause for his and Blum’s failure to appear for the deposition on May 26 26, 2021 and Defendants had to incur court reporter fees for the non-appearance. Therefore, 27 Plaintiff shall pay the court reporter fees for the June 28, 2021 deposition. Defendants’ 1 denied. However, Plaintiff is warned that any violation of this order by Plaintiff and/or Blum may 2 || result in sanctions, including the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred with such 3 violation(s). 4 Finally, the court previously ordered Plaintiff to produce all documents responsive to 5 || Defendants’ subpoena by no later than May 19, 2021. May 14, 2021 Order at 4. If Plaintiff has 6 || not already done so, he shall produce such documents to Defendants by no later than 6:00 p.m. on 7 June 26, 2021. Any responsive documents that post-date the May 14, 2021 order must be 8 || produced at Blum’s deposition. 9 Defendants’ request to exclude Blum as an expert is denied. The current record does not 10 support such a harsh remedy. 11 The parties are strongly advised to work together to complete this deposition in a 12 || reasonable manner without further dispute. SE DISTR ICG> 13 SO’ IT IS SO ORDERED ay S sO ORDERED □ 15 || Dated: June 25, 2021 yr is Q 16 A AY 4 GUA GL □□ raped M. Ryo | | □□ om □ Z 18 Lay AS 19 DISTRICS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28