United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
*E-FILED 8/24/06*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
MORGAN STANLEY DW INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY R. COLLISON, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
NO. C 06-04827 RMW (RS)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, seeking to prevent defendants
from taking a deposition under Rule 30 (b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a
corporate designee of plaintiff. The motion was taken under submission on shortened time and
without oral argument, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-3 (d) and Rule 7-1 (b), and as provided in the
Court’s order filed August 22, 2006 granting plaintiff’s motion for an order shortening time. Upon
consideration of all of the briefing filed in connection with this motion and of the entire record
herein, the motion for a protective order will be denied.
At plaintiff’s express request for expedited discovery made in its application for a temporary
restraining order, Judge Fogel ordered that each party would be permitted to take two, two-hour,
depositions. Although Judge Fogel’s order used the term “individuals,” nothing in the context of
that order or in the circumstances under which it was issued implies that Judge Fogel was asked to or
Case 5:06-cv-04827-RMW Document 24 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 1 of 4
Morgan Stanley DW Inc. v. Collison et al
Doc. 24
Dockets.Justia.com
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 In their opposition to this motion, defendants offer to narrow the scope of their inquiry to a
degree. They shall honor that offer.
2
intended to, distinguish between depositions of natural persons and depositions of corporate entities
under Rule 30