Adams v. Community Housing Partnership

Background

The order resolves a discovery dispute concerning plaintiff Amy Adams’s deposition and document production. Community Housing Partnership does business as HomeRise, which the order uses as the defendant’s name after introducing that designation.

Adams’s deposition was scheduled for November 20, 2024, in Berkeley, California. She arrived one hour late because her car had been broken into. The deposition began at about 11:00 a.m. instead of 10:00 a.m., and Adams testified for approximately 3.5 hours. The deposition location closed at 5:00 p.m. HomeRise stated that the deposition would need to continue on another day, but Adams objected.

Deposition ruling

HomeRise asked the court to order Adams to appear for another 2.5 hours. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(1) generally limits a deposition to one day of seven hours, but requires additional time when it is needed to fairly examine the witness or when circumstances impede or delay the examination. The court found that defense counsel’s opportunity to question Adams was limited by her late arrival and the early closing of the chosen location.

The court granted HomeRise’s request for an additional 2.5 hours of deposition testimony, bringing the total testimony time to six hours. The court said it was reasonable for the continued deposition to occur in Berkeley, while allowing the parties to conduct it by Zoom if they agree. The court also ordered defense counsel to become a member of the Northern District of California bar before the deposition resumes and instructed counsel to ask only relevant questions.

Document-production ruling

HomeRise also asked the court to order Adams to search for additional categories of documents identified in the deposition notice. Adams stated that she had completed her search and production of responsive documents and had no additional responsive documents. The court accepted Adams’s statement and found no reason to require her to repeat the search and production process.

The court denied HomeRise’s document-search request. It allowed HomeRise to question Adams further about her search and the documents identified during the continued deposition. If a dispute arises from that testimony, the parties may present it to the court in a joint letter.

Effect of the order

The order addresses discovery procedures rather than the merits of the underlying case. It requires Adams to provide additional deposition testimony, denies the request for another document search, and directs both lawyers to act professionally during the rest of the case.