Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-01045
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Judge Van Keulen granted a protective order changing where three depositions would occur because travel posed hardships.
Bold Limited, Rocket Resume, Inc., Stephen Zimmerman, and the three witnesses whose depositions were at issue: Nelson Ortiz, Helen Matthews, and Jami Vanderham.
What happened
In Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, the parties disputed where three company-affiliated witnesses would be deposed. Rocket Resume and Stephen Zimmerman noticed the depositions in San Francisco, while Bold Limited requested different locations because travel would cause hardships.
The court found good cause for a protective order because discovery was closing in ten days and the witnesses faced business, spousal-care, or child-care obligations. The depositions could occur remotely if the defendants chose, or in Houston or Atlanta for Nelson Ortiz, within 50 miles of Helen Matthews’s residence, and in Ames or Des Moines, Iowa, for Jami Vanderham.
Judge Susan Van Keulen granted the protective order and ordered the parties to meet and confer within 24 hours to confirm deposition dates and locations.
The detailed version
- Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc. · No. 5:22-cv-01045
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 10, 2023
Background
Bold Limited sought a protective order concerning the locations of depositions for three affiliated witnesses: Nelson Ortiz and Helen Matthews, whom the plaintiffs designated as organization witnesses under Rule 30(b)(6), and Jami Vanderham, whom the defendants noticed for deposition. Rocket Resume, Inc. and Stephen Zimmerman had noticed all three depositions in San Francisco and opposed Bold’s request.
The parties also disputed the timing of the deposition notices and their related obligations. The court identified two undisputed circumstances: discovery was scheduled to close in ten days, and each witness had a good-cause hardship limiting near-term travel. Ortiz had business commitments, Matthews was providing spousal care after surgery, and Vanderham had child-care responsibilities. The defendants did not meaningfully challenge those showings.
Ruling
The court found good cause to grant the protective order, citing the witnesses’ particular hardships and the impending discovery deadline. It ordered that:
- The depositions would take place in person unless the defendants elected to conduct any or all of them remotely. - Ortiz’s deposition would take place in either Houston or Atlanta, at the defendants’ election. - Matthews’s deposition would take place within 50 miles of her residence, at a location chosen by the defendants. - Vanderham’s deposition would take place in either Ames or Des Moines, Iowa, at the defendants’ election. - The parties would meet and confer within 24 hours after receiving the order to confirm deposition dates and locations.
The order was signed by Susan Van Keulen, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.