Luke Zeman v. XTRA Lease LLC et al

Filing 53

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE [DKT Nos. 38,45 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The court believes that Defendant's action were not consistent with the spirit of the discovery rules. At the very least, Defendant would have been well served to call opposing counsel and explaint the change in position and offer to extend discovery. Nevertheless, in the interst of resolving the underlying dispute on the merits, the court will not strike the declarations. Plaintiff's motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 45) is DENIED. The court will, however, reopen discovery as set forth below. Additioanlly, if requested by Plaintiff and subject to a full hearing on possible objections, the court may permit Defendant's objections as to relevance to be submitted to the jury. In light of questions of material fact with respect to Plaintiff's job duties and responsibilities created by the proffered testimony of Freeman, King, and Hill, Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summ ary Judgment (Dkt. No. 38) is DENIED without prejudice. Modification of Scheduling Order. The court modifies the Scheduling Order as follows: DISCOVERY CUT-OFF: 10/27/14. LAST DAY TO FILE MOTIONS: 11/28/14. FINAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE: 2/23/15 AT 11:00 A.M. 203 DAY JURY TRIAL: 3/3/15 AT 9:00 A.M. (bp)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUKE ZEMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

XTRA LEASE, LLC,

15

Defendant.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 13-04990 DDP (Ex)
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE
[DKT Nos. 38, 45]

16
17

Before the court is Plaintiff Luke Zeman (“Plaintiff”)'s

18

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 38.) Also before the

19

court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Declarations of Oliver

20

Freeman, Stephen King, and Stephanie Hill (Dkt. No. 45), which the

21

court has construed as an ex parte application (Dkt. Nos. 47). Both

22

matters are fully briefed. Having considered the parties'

23

submissions and heard oral argument, the court issues the following

24

order.

25
26
27
28

I.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff asks that the court strike the declarations of

Oliver Freeman (“Freeman”), Stephen King (“King”), and Stephanie

1

Hill (“Hill”), each of whom are Branch Operations Managers at XTRA

2

locations in California.

3

Defendant responded to an interrogatory seeking the identity

4

of individuals working as Branch Operations Managers at XTRA

5

locations in California by stating, in part, that the information

6

“is not relevant to the subject matter of the action nor

7

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

8

evidence." (Declaration of Jennifer Keating in Support of Motion

9

to Strike Ex. C at 3-4.) Defendant also did not include in its

10

initial disclosures the names of any Branch Operations Managers.

11

(Id. ¶ 3 and Ex. B.)

12

Defendant subsequently identified Freeman, King, and Hill as

13

witnesses at or about the close of discovery. (Id. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)

14

Defendant then used the declarations of these individuals as key

15

evidence opposing Plaintiff's summary judgment motion. (See

16

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

17

Judgement at 1-2, 14-17 and Exs. 3-5.) Defendant offered in its

18

papers and at oral argument the explanation that it did not become

19

aware of the significance of these witnesses until near the close

20

of discovery, that Plaintiff had sought and then retracted a

21

notice to depose two of the Branch Managers in question, and that

22

Defendant’s duty to supplement its discovery responses was not so

23

broad as to require, in any event, that Defendant's prior

24

objection on relevance be amended. (See Opposition to Motion to

25

Strike at Plaintiff at 3-8.) Plaintiff noted that it relied on

26

Defendant's assertion of lack of relevance and stated that the

27

depositions were withdrawn because, in reliance on the objection,

28
2

1

the depositions were going to be of limited scope and were not

2

necessary. (See Keating Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.)

3

The court believes that Defendant's actions were not

4

consistent with the spirit of the discovery rules. At the very

5

least, Defendant would have been well served to call opposing

6

counsel and explain the change in position and offer to extend

7

discovery.

8

underlying dispute on the merits, the court will not strike the

9

declarations. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 45) is

Nevertheless, in the interest of resolving the

10

DENIED. The court will, however, reopen discovery as set forth

11

below. Additionally, if requested by Plaintiff and subject to a

12

full hearing on possible objections, the court may permit

13

Defendant's objection as to relevance to be submitted to the jury.

14
15
16

II.

Motion for Partial Summary Judgement
In light of questions of material fact with respect to

17

Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities created by the

18

proffered testimony of Freeman, King, and Hill, Plaintiff’s Motion

19

for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 38) is DENIED without

20

prejudice.

21
22
23

III. Modification of Scheduling Order
The court modifies the Scheduling Order as follows:

24

DISCOVERY CUT-OFF:

10-27-14

25

LAST DAY TO FILE MOTIONS:

11-28-14

26

FINAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE:

02-23-15 at 11:00 a.m.

27

2-3 DAY JURY TRIAL:

03-03-15 at 9:00 a.m.

28
3

1

The parties are ordered to meet and confer within 10 days of

2

this Order to devise a schedule for addressing discovery issues in

3

an efficient manner during the period of reopened discovery.

4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7

Dated: August 5, 2014
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4