Lamartina v. VMware, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-02182
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lamartina v. VMware, Inc., Magistrate Judge DeMarchi set deadlines and conditions for a corporate deposition while a privilege dispute remained unresolved.
William Lamartina and VMware, Inc.; the order governs the timing and possible reopening of Lamartina’s deposition of VMware.
What happened
In Lamartina v. VMware, Inc., William Lamartina asked to take VMware’s corporate deposition before resolving a separate dispute about whether VMware had waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. VMware opposed taking the deposition first.
The court ordered Lamartina to file any motion claiming waiver by January 30, 2024, with at least 35 days’ notice of the hearing. Lamartina could take the deposition before the waiver dispute was resolved, but could not later reopen it based on the court’s decision about privilege or work-product protection. Lamartina also had to notify the court and VMware by January 10 whether he wanted the deposition before or after that dispute was resolved.
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi issued the discovery-management order on January 3, 2024, without resolving whether VMware actually waived any protection.
The detailed version
- Lamartina v. VMware, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-02182
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 3, 2024
Background
The parties asked the court to resolve a dispute about the timing of plaintiff William Lamartina’s deposition of VMware, Inc. under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows an organization to designate witnesses to testify about listed topics. Lamartina’s notice identified seven topics. VMware had not identified a witness or agreed to a deposition date.
VMware’s remaining objection was that the deposition should not occur before the parties briefed and the court resolved an earlier dispute over attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product protection. Lamartina had argued that VMware waived those protections through disclosures and statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The court previously directed Lamartina to present that issue through a regularly noticed motion, but he had not yet filed one.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that Lamartina could not unilaterally control the sequence and timing of discovery. It emphasized that both parties must use discovery procedures to help achieve a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution and must cooperate on a discovery plan. The court also noted its authority to manage discovery.
After reviewing the deposition notice, the court agreed that the listed topics implicated the privilege and work-product issues. It concluded that resolving whether VMware had waived those protections before requiring VMware to prepare deposition witnesses would be more efficient. The court did not decide whether VMware had waived either protection.
Order and effect
The court ordered that:
- If Lamartina contended that VMware waived attorney-client privilege or attorney-work-product protection through its disclosures or statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission, he had to file the motion by January 30, 2024, and give at least 35 days’ notice of the hearing. - Lamartina could proceed with VMware’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition before the existing privilege and work-product dispute was resolved. - If Lamartina proceeded before resolution of that dispute, the court would not allow him to reopen the deposition if it later found that VMware had waived the protections. - By January 10, 2024, Lamartina had to notify the court and VMware whether he wanted the deposition before or after resolution of the waiver issue, so the court could issue another order about timing if appropriate.
The order resolved the discovery-timing dispute but did not resolve the privilege or work-product dispute or the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.