Summary
finding that defendants failed to show good cause as to why the depositions should not be taken via videoconference
Summary of this case from Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.Opinion
Case No. 10-01509 RS (NC) Re: Dkt. No. 115
11-14-2011
GARY GEE, ROXANNE MAZARAKIS, JODY SOTO, Plaintiffs, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant.
ORDER VACATING HEARING
Plaintiffs bring this putative class against Defendant Suntrust Mortgage for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and California's Unfair Competition Law. Dkt. No. 19. Suntrust moves to compel three named plaintiffs and twenty-five opt-in plaintiffs to appear for depositions in San Francisco or in four cities of its choice. Dkt. No. 115. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 121. Based on the papers submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the motion is appropriate for determination without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for November 16, 2011 is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge