Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: BC722308, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC722308    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Nike USA, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED

I.                MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff Nike USA, Inc. (Plaintiff) seeks a protective order preventing the taking of a second session of deposition for Gil Blank, Nike’s Director of Brand Imaging. Blank’s deposition took place in person on August 11, 2023, and Plaintiff contends that at the deposition, counsel for Defendants 5860 West Jefferson LLC and Samitaur Constructs (Defendants) wasted deposition time by asking Blank questions concerning the lease and the construction at issue, matters for which he had no personal knowledge. (Sanders Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.) Defendants presented Blank with a lease document he had not previously read, and for which he spent 40 minutes on the record reading to himself. (Sanders Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff contends that Blank’s personal knowledge related to this action is limited to how Defendants’ breaches affected Plaintiff’s brand imaging operations. (Sanders Decl. ¶ 5.) After Defendants terminated the deposition 53 minutes early due to a health issue asserted by Defendants’ counsel, Defendants corresponded with Plaintiff attempting to secure a second session of deposition, for which Plaintiff now seeks a court order to prevent. (Sanders Decl. ¶¶ 9–11.)

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the protective order sought. “[A] deposition examination of the witness by all counsel, other than the witness' counsel of record, shall be limited to seven hours of total testimony.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.290, subd. (a).) It is undisputed that the first session of deposition at issue was shorter than this seven-hour limit by 53 minutes. And although Plaintiff contends that time was wasted regarding the examination of documents and questioning concerning irrelevant matters, the excerpt of the deposition presented by Defendants in opposition suggests that the delay in examining documents was at least partly caused by Blank’s decision to review the entire document prior to questioning, rather than review relevant portions as they became relevant. (Evans Decl. Exh. A at pp. 89–90.) Moreover, Defendants’ counsel offers a declaration stating that the deposition was suspended with time remaining in order to accommodate his hypo-glycemia, resulting from surgeries undertaken to address esophageal cancer. (Evans Decl. ¶¶ 4–5.) The parties agree that Blank has knowledge of Defendants’ alleged breaches and the consequences thereof, at least as regards Nike’s branding operations, and Defendants present evidence that Blank was involved in the design of the building in question. (Evans Decl. Exh. A at pp. 101–102.) Defendants may accordingly seek to take the remaining 53 minutes of Blank’s deposition only.

The motion for protective order is DENIED.