Subject: Court order Re Grady Ward From: hkhenson@netcom.com (Keith Henson) Date: 1996/06/13 Message-Id: Thomas R~ Hogan, Esq., California State Bar No.042048 LAW OFFICES OF ThOMAS R, HOGAN 60 South Marl:et Sti~et, Suite 1125 San ~se, CA 95113-2332 Telephone: (408) 292-7600 Helena K Kobijn 7629 Fulton Avenue Noi4h Hollywood, California 91605 Telephone: (213) 960-1933 Attorneys for Plaintiff RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER UNFIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ThE NORThERN DISTRICT OF CALifORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a) No. C 96-20207 RMW California non-pn)flt coipori~tion, ) ) N~CE OF ENTRY OF ORDER Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) ) GRADY WARD, ) ) Defendant ) ) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 3, 1996, the court entered the attached ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF~S MOTION FOR FURTHER EXPEDITED DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT GRADY WARD in the above-captioned maffer Dated ~ /~/9~~ ______________ THOMAS R. HOGAN Attorneys for Plaintiff OR! G FILE:~ JUN 031996 RIC'4.A~DW.W,.~, CLE~K, U.5 DISTF,~CT C~L NO~THE~N D~ST~ICT OF CAL'iOf~NlA SAN JOSE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRIC'f OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a NO. C-96-20207-RM'W (EAI) California non-profit corporation, ORDER GRANT~G PLAINTIFF'S MOTION Plaintiff FOR FURTHER EXPEDITED DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT GRADY WARD V GRADY WARD, an individual Defendant. Plaintiff's Motion for Further Expedited Deposition ofGrady Ward was heard by telephonic conference of Monday, June 3, 1996. Thomas R. Hogan and Eric M. Lieberman appeared on behalf of RTC. Grady Ward appeared pro se. Having carefully reviewed and considered the i~oti~~n papers and oral argument', and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERLD THAT RTC~s Motion for Further Deposition of Defendant Grady Ward is GRANTED for the following reasons. I. Background Defendant Ward's deposition took place on April 8 - 9, 1996 for a total of9 hours and 20 minutes. Ward was questioned on ~'background matters such as his education and employment. postin~s to the Internet made under his header containing Advanced Technology solicitations ~ [footnote 1] 'In addition to the motion papers, the court also considered audio tapes submitted by the defendant as evidence of plaintiff's counsel's abusive deposition conduct. The court tinds that plainti~s counsel was not abusive during the April 8-9, 1996 deposition. Advanced Technology, and comments about posting of Advanced Technology, postings by S(AMIZDAT of Advanced Technology materials, Ward's connections to SCAMIZDAT and his claims that such postings are forgeries." Plaintiff's Motion for Further Expedited Discovery, ~ at 2:8-2:12. On April 9, 1996, Ward suspended the deposition complaining about the length of time.[2] The parties contacted this court to resolve their dispute regarding the deposition. The court ordered that the deposition be suspended at 12:15 p.m. and stated that plaintiff could file a motion requesting additional time. II. Discussion Rule 30(d)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that the court should permit additional time for deposition consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) "if needed for a fair examination of the deponent or if the deponent or another party impeded or delays the examination." In the present case, defendants have established that additional time for deposition is needed for a fair examination of Ward. The deposition was not completed, particularly with respect to the defendant's alleged postings of RTC's unpublished, copyrighted works and trade secrets, an issue that is central to this copyright infringment and trade secret misappropriattion case. It is evident from the excerpts of deposition transcript submitted to the court that defendants' inability to complete Ward's deposition was directly attributable to the evasive and contradictory answers and dilatory tactics of defendant. Ward even admits to some 'game" playing during his deposition. He often gave evasive answers which required plaintiff to re-ask the same question or to ask several additional questions in an attempt to clarify Ward's response. When doing so, plaintiff was often faced with additional evasive answers. Defendant's actions were dilatory and time consuming. Plaintiff is entitled to examine the [footnote2] 2Plaintiff claims that Ward agreed to provide the time needed to complete his deposition due to plaintiff's willingness to relocate the deposition to Eureka (only a few miles from Ward's home in Arcata), to have documents produced at the deposition rather than prior to the deposition as required by Judge Whyte's Order, and to reschedule the deposition from April 9, 1996, to accommodate Ward's vacation plans. Each of these conversations were over the phone, and there are no confirming letters to memorialize the discussions. RTC claims that it was not aware that Ward intended the depoSition to take a total of 9 hours until Ward served his objections to RTC's document requests. Ward argues that the 9 and 1/2 hour deposition exceeds the amount of time previously agreed upon by the parties and cites to his objections to plaintiffs document requests. He also suggests that the time exceeds the amount of time initially suggested by Judge Whyte (6 hours). Ward suggests that his willinguess to allow extra time was due to his desire to be ully and completely deposed. defendant thoroughly on the factual issues relating to claims or defenses asserted in the pleadings It was not possible to complete the deposition in the allotted time in light of (l) the numerous factual issues relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit and (2) the defendant's evasive and contradictory responses to the questions. Accordingly, pursuant to Rules 30(d)(2) and 26(c)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. the deposition examination of defendant Grady Ward shall resume in Eureka California at a time mutually convenient to both parties, but no later than July 1, 1996. At the end of the first day of the deposition, if the deposition has not been completed and if the parties are in dispute regardine additional time required to complete the deposition, the parties shall contact the undersigned Magistrate by telephone conference. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED. 4' 2)~Y'~ EDWAPL EDWARD A. fNFANTE iii United States Magistrate judt4e Copy of Order mailed on _______to Tom Hogan THOMAS R. HOGAN LAW OFFICES 60 S. Market St., Ste. 1125 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 292-7600 Helena K. Kobrin 7629 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605 (213)960-1933 Eric Lieberman RABINOWITZ, BOUDIN, STANDARD, KRINSKY & LIEBERMAN, P.C. 740 Broadway - Fifth Floor New York, New York 10003 (212) 254-I II Grady Ward PRO SE 3449 Martha Court Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 82()-7712